MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1999615685 · doi:10.1177/1043986203259124

Sentencing Juvenile Offenders in Canada

2003· article· en· W1999615685 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

VenueJournal of Contemporary Criminal Justice · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicCriminal Justice and Corrections Analysis
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLegislationPrisonJuvenileJuvenile delinquencyCriminologyPrincipal (computer security)Economic JusticePolitical scienceStatutory lawMinor (academic)Criminal justiceLawPopulationPsychologySociologyComputer securityDemography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Statutory reforms of the juvenile justice system came to Canada in 2003 when the Youth Criminal Justice Act (YCJA) became law. This article reviews the principal sentencing provisions and, in particular, the purposes and principles that are now codified as a result of the new legislation. The legislation attempts to reduce the number of young offenders sent to prison while facilitating the imposition of harsher sentences on a small number of juveniles convicted of the most serious offenses. The YCJA moves youth court sentencing closer to sentencing as it is conducted in adult court but also maintains some important differences between the two levels. These reforms are likely to reduce the number of young persons sent to prison in Canada and change the composition of the juvenile prison population by reducing the number of young offenders incarcerated for minor crimes or property crimes.

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 categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.409
Threshold uncertainty score0.996

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
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 head0.048
GPT teacher head0.296
Teacher spread0.248 · 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