Bibliographic record
Abstract
The recent enactment of the Young Offenders Act has ended a long period of the rule of the “parens patriae”, philosophy whereby the juvenile court's task was not to administer just punishment for the offence but to diagnose and treat the underlying problems. The new legislation, which follows the “justice model”, attempts to broaden legal rights of accused juveniles while simultaneously making juvenile law more punitive and more focused on specific criminal offences. The present article looks at the way the Canadian mass media reported on this major historical shift in the juvenile justice philosophy. The overt and hidden messages are analysed and the sources of the prevailing definitions explored. It has been found that the majority of informants represented powerful interest groups and organizations. Moreover, the investigated press reports created an image of fundamental consensus, and the new legislation was presented as being beneficial to the society as a whole. The inherent contradictions in the philosophy underlying the new Act were overlooked in favour of an image of a perfect balance whereby ambivalences of the new approach became transformed into virtues. The article tests a number of hypotheses and offers theoretical interpretations of the findings. The applicability of the consensual functionalist, critical functionalist and Marxist orientations is assessed.
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 | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.011 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.001 |
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.
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".