MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1996358293 · doi:10.1080/09627250408553648

Problem-solving justice: responding to real problems, real people

2004· article· en· W1996358293 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.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueCriminal Justice Matters · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicLegal Education and Practice Innovations
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCriminal justiceAccountabilityFraming (construction)Economic JusticePoliticsPolitical scienceLawCriminologySociologyEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The American criminal justice system can be seen as one of polar extremes – too harsh, to some; too soft, to others. Unfortunately, framing the justice system reductively has created paralyzing obstacles to reform – all too often, change efforts are seen as a zero-sum game – what’s good for one side is necessarily and correspondingly bad for the other. But there’s another truth percolating up through the American criminal justice system, a new approach – problemsolving justice – that has shown some success at cutting through the political knot choking reform. Emerging over the last fifteen years, a wave of specialized courts – community courts, drug treatment courts, domestic violence courts and mental health courts – are testing innovative ways to deliver justice. Their objective is to provide more lasting and meaningful resolutions for thousands of difficult cases. The conditions giving rise to these new problem-solving courts are not hard to identify. In recent decades, courts have increasingly become the public institution of choice for dealing with the social problems that other institutions can’t seem to handle: addiction; mental illness; family dysfunction; repeated petty assaults against property; anti-social behaviour. Not surprisingly, traditional litigation approaches can yield distinctly unsatisfactory outcomes when applied to these non-traditional issues. As New York State Chief Judge Judith S. Kaye has written: judge to link offenders to community service, drug treatment, job training, education and numerous other services. To ensure accountability, compliance is rigorously monitored. Community courts also seek to transform the experience of justice for citizens. As Home Secretary David Blunkett remarked after a 2003 visit to the Red Hook Community Justice Center, a community court in Brooklyn, New York: “What I saw . . . was about engaging the community in finding a way of resolving problems . . . .It was about the community coming together physically as well as intellectually, and practically, to help do something about it, and using volunteers.” The community court concept has captured the interest of the British government, and community residents and court administrators are currently engaged in planning a Liverpool Community Justice Centre. International interest is not limited to the UK: Australia, Canada and South Africa are also actively evaluating the feasibility of community courts for their justice systems – and closely tracking the UK’s progress. Community courts represent just one model of creating more responsive justice. Indeed, all problem-solving courts embrace a common-sense operating assumption: that court stakeholders – the public at large, victims, witnesses, even defendants – are meant to be treated as customers. Justice is achieved by serving real people with real problems.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.529
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0020.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.056
GPT teacher head0.384
Teacher spread0.328 · 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