A Study of Volunteers in Community-Based Restorative Justice Programs
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Community-based restorative justice (RJ) programs rely heavily on volunteers to perform a range of duties, including facilitating case conferences. We surveyed 76 volunteers from 12 RJ programs throughout British Columbia, Canada, in order to (1) identify the characteristics of volunteers, (2) document their involvement in RJ, (3) measure their motivations to volunteer, (4) explore the skills they perceive to be useful, (5) document the training they receive, and (6) determine the factors that influence satisfaction with their roles. This study was guided by a conceptual model of the RJ volunteer process. We found that RJ volunteers comprise primarily older Caucasian women. Volunteers were mostly recruited by word of mouth and were motivated by their commitment to RJ ideals. Although they brought a wealth of skills and qualifications, volunteers were trained in order to provide a range of services to programs. Finally, volunteers were generally satisfied with their roles in RJ programs. These findings have implications for volunteer recruitment, training, and retention.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".