MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1996251621 · doi:10.1080/15564880801938318

Victim Participation and Therapeutic Jurisprudence

2008· article· en· W1996251621 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueVictims & Offenders · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicCriminal Justice and Corrections Analysis
Canadian institutionsUniversité de MontréalInternational Centre for Comparative Criminology
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCriminal justiceEconomic JusticeCriminologyLawPolitical scienceSociologyPsychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Research with crime victims suggests that victims seek participation and recognition in the justice system (Erez, 1999 Erez, E. 1999. Who's afraid of the big bad victim? Victim impact statements as victim empowerment and enhancement of justice. Criminal Law Review, : 545–556. [Web of Science ®] , [Google Scholar]; Kilchling, 1995 Kilchling, M. 1995. Opferinteressen und Strafverfolgung, Freiburg im, Br: Max-Planck-Institut. [Victim interests and criminal prosecution]. [Google Scholar]; Shapland, Willmore, & Duff, 1985 Shapland, J., Willmore, J. and Duff, P. 1985. Victims in the criminal justice system, Aldershot: Gower Publishing. [Google Scholar]; Wemmers, 1996 Wemmers, J. 1996. Victims in the criminal justice system, Amsterdam: Kugler. [Google Scholar]). However, victim participation in the criminal justice system is a point of debate among scholars (Ashworth, 1993 Ashworth, A. 1993. Victim impact statements and sentencing. Criminal Law Review, : 498–509. [Web of Science ®] , [Google Scholar]; Erez, 1999 Erez, E. 1999. Who's afraid of the big bad victim? Victim impact statements as victim empowerment and enhancement of justice. Criminal Law Review, : 545–556. [Web of Science ®] , [Google Scholar]). Participation can take various forms: it can mean an active decision-making role or merely consultation and consideration (Edwards, 2004 Edwards, I. 2004. An ambiguous participant: The crime victim and criminal justice decision-making. British Journal of Criminology, 44: 967–982. [Crossref], [Web of Science ®] , [Google Scholar]; Wemmers & Cyr, 2004 Wemmers, J. and Cyr, K. 2004. Victims' perspectives on restorative justice: How much involvement are victims looking for?. International Review of Victimology, 11: 1–16. [Crossref] , [Google Scholar]). In addition, there is the question of how victims are affected by their participation. While victims in Canada are currently by and large excluded from the criminal justice process, their being outside the system does (to some extent) shelter them from the offender. This raises the question: when is participation helpful or therapeutic for victims and when is it harmful or antitherapeutic? Based on interviews with public prosecutors and victim support workers in the province of Quebec, this study explores the similarities and differences in the perceptions of these two key groups of professionals. Both prosecutors and victim support workers can be considered victims' allies in an adversarial justice system and the study reveals important similarities as well as differences between the two groups with respect to their perceptions of victim participation.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.333
Threshold uncertainty score0.823

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.052
GPT teacher head0.333
Teacher spread0.281 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it