A discursive analysis of restorative justice in British Columbia
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Though restorative processes offer benefits to victims of crime that cannot be gained from the traditional justice system, and though there is a general upward acceptance of restorative approaches, institutionalising these practices is nevertheless sporadic and slow-paced. This paper focuses on a particular policy provision within the Criminal Victim Assistance Program in British Columbia that is incoherent with a network of legislation and regulations that support restorative approaches to crime, and is, at the same time, effective in denying victims of crime the ability to choose a restorative justice approach. A ‘policy as discourse’ (Bacchi, 2009) framework is used to ask: ‘How does this policy provision come to have such force?’ The discourse analysis shows the policy provision to reside at the intersection of three constitutive and, at times, contradictory discourses—in this case bureaucratisation, neoliberalism and feminism—that collude and compete to deny victims of crime a restorative justice process.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it