Parents’ Involvement in the Youth Justice System: A View from the Trenches
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Although the Youth Criminal Justice Act (YCJA) contains more references to parents than did previous youth justice legislation, it contains little discussion of the principles underlying parental involvement. Thus, it is critical to explore the views of those who work in the youth justice system, as their perceptions may shape how they involve parents in the system. In this descriptive study, Ontario police, defence and crown counsel, youth court judges, and probation officers were interviewed regarding their perceptions of parental involvement in youth justice proceedings. Most respondents believed that the YCJA actively encourages parental involvement. In addition to support and advocacy for youth, officials indicated that legislators intend parents to play a role in addressing youths’ offending behaviour. Nevertheless, there were concerns that current legislation encourages parental involvement only in theory and that this does not translate into practice. Different, and at times conflicting, perspectives across respondent groups suggest the need for inter-professional training to enable the system to work more collaboratively to provide youth and parents with consistent information and expectations regarding parents’ roles and to promote more effective parental involvement.
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 | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.018 | 0.013 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| 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".