Young Offenders and their Communities: Reframing the Institution as an Extension of the Community
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper makes a case for using the institution as an extension of community resources rather than as a place for the exclusion of young offenders. This argument is built on 2 case studies that highlight the importance of treating young offenders in their own community and the need for permeable boundaries between institutions for young offenders and their communities. It is shown that processing youths as young offenders without helping them to maintain a sense of belonging to the community threatens their identity. Collaboration between institutions and communities to address the root causes of problems presented by at-risk youths and their families is as important for serious offenders as for their less delinquent peers. While the Youth Criminal Justice Act does not preclude movement in this direction, it is ambiguous about the development of community alternatives for serious offenders.
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 | 0.009 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.030 | 0.059 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.019 | 0.024 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.026 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.009 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 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".