Bibliographic record
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.014 | 0.028 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.039 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.015 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".