MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2079057988 · doi:10.1177/0032885506293251

Setting Aside Criminal Convictions in Canada

2006· article· en· W2079057988 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Prison Journal · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicCriminal Justice and Corrections Analysis
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAsideConvictionCriminologySet-asideCriminal recordCollateralCriminal ConvictionPsychologyPolitical scienceForgivenessLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Expunging a criminal conviction in the United States is a rare event and often limited to persons who committed offenses as juveniles or adult misdemeanants. Criminal convictions in Canada, however, are routinely set aside through pardons after offenders have demonstrated a period of crime-free behavior. Sealing an offender’s criminal record, the practice in Canada, is a significant step in his or her reentry into society and official acknowledgment of society’s forgiveness. This exploratory study of pardons in Canada has two clear findings: First, despite the relatively easy process, few individuals with criminal records make application for pardons. Second, of those who do apply, few applications are ever denied, and a very small percentage of successful applicants reoffend. Although setting aside criminal convictions seems inconsistent with the increasing use of collateral consequences for U.S. offenders, taking this approach might contribute to increased public safety in the long term by easing offender reintegration.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.834
Threshold uncertainty score0.866

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.276
Teacher spread0.262 · 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