Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article reviews some of the recent political rhetoric and public opinion on the controversial subject of youth crime and how to deal with it, particularly the Young Offenders Act of 1984 and the new Youth Criminal Justice Act of 2002, from a social constructionist perspective. Recent controversy over youth crime and justice is nothing new, reflecting differing views about the causes of crime and the appropriate ways of responding to it as specific manifestations of more fundamental and conflicting ideological assumptions regarding views of human nature, the degree of individual responsibility for behavior, and the fundamental values of society. The debates surrounding the new Youth Criminal Justice Act continue to reflect these ideological conflicts. Generally, there is a substantial gap between much of the rhetoric and the reality of youth crime and justice. Youth crime and justice in Canada is certainly an important issue that requires serious attention, but it is hardly the crisis that some would have us believe. Much depends upon how the new Youth Criminal Justice Act is actually implemented. A failure to alter the usual political rhetoric surrounding youth crime and justice obscures the reality in this area and will contribute to an on-going cycle of controversy that does little to advance efforts of effective crime prevention.
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 | 0.003 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.044 | 0.022 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.013 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".