Child Protection vs. Crime Prevention: The Regulation of Young Offenders' Private Information in Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Having examined 151 years of enacted legislation in the Canadian youth criminal justice system (1857–2007), the author analyzes how the Parliament of Canada has regulated the publication of information that identifies young people as being or having been dealt with by the justice system. Piñero identifies four different time periods in the legislation: 1857–1891; 1892–1907; 1908–1981; and 1982–2007. The regulation enacted during 1857–1891 was not concerned with the publication of information that may identify young offenders. This position started to change during the period 1892–1907, reaching its highest point during the period 1908–1981. The 1908–1981 period was highly concerned with the protection of young offenders' private information, since such a measure was perceived as an important factor for granting young offenders rehabilitation. However, since 1982 this direction started to change: the enacted regulation during the period 1982–2007 drew a distinction between two groups of young offenders according to the seriousness of the committed offences, thereby protecting the private information of one of the groups but not the private information of the other. Piñero argues that the theoretical implications underlying the regulation of young offenders' privacy rights in the period 1908–1981 constituted an evolution (innovation) with regard to the periods 1857–1891 and 1892–1907, while the theoretical implications underlying the period 1982–2007 constituted (and constitute) a regression as to the third period.
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 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".