MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2034723324 · doi:10.3138/cjccj.46.3.251

The First Months under the Youth Criminal Justice Act: A Survey and Analysis of Case Law

2004· article· en· W2034723324 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Nicholas Bala, Sanjeev Anand

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Criminology and Criminal Justice/La Revue canadienne de criminologie et de justice pénale · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicCriminal Justice and Corrections Analysis
Canadian institutionsUniversity of AlbertaQueen's University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCommitSanctionsAccountabilityCriminologyAppealLawCriminal justiceEconomic JusticePolitical scienceJudgementPsychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Youth Criminal Justice Act was enacted to reduce the use of court and incarceration for young offenders who commit less serious crimes, while making it easier to imposes adult sanctions on those youths who commit the most serious violent offences. Preliminary reports indicate that the act has resulted in significant increases in community-based responses to youth crime. Most judges seem to recognize that the YCJA makes proportionate accountability the dominant sentencing principle, although they also recognize the YCJA's limitations on the use of custody and rehabilitative principles. Further, a Quebec Court of Appeal judgement ruled unconstitutional some of the "get tough" provisions of the act that were intended to facilitate the imposition of adult sanctions for the most serious violent young offenders; but that decision also indicated that youth courts should "balance" accountability concerns with a consideration of the needs of young 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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.023
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.997
Threshold uncertainty score0.113

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.023
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0090.006
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.101
GPT teacher head0.323
Teacher spread0.222 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations20
Published2004
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Criminology and Criminal Justice/La Revue canadienne de criminologie et de justice pénaleSame topicCriminal Justice and Corrections AnalysisFrench-language works237,207