MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2107069877 · doi:10.1177/1473225408101430

Rights-based Restorative Justice: Evaluating Compliance with International Standards

2009· article· en· W2107069877 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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueYouth Justice · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicChildren's Rights and Participation
Canadian institutionsBrock University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRestorative justiceCompliance (psychology)Human rightsEconomic JusticePolitical sciencePoliticsSociologyCultural rightsLawEngineering ethicsInternational human rights lawCriminologyPsychologySocial psychologyEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The authors' aim is to promote compliance with international legal standards by articulating intersections between young people's human rights and restorative justice principles — for legal theorists through transdisciplinary thinking and for practitioners by introducing the Rights Based Restorative Practice Evaluation ToolKit developed through this conceptual framework (Moore, 2008). This comprehensive approach was developed within the Canadian legal, social policy and youth justice contexts. Notwithstanding potential bias stemming from cultural or political milieu, the authors argue that rights-based restorative justice could contribute to the advancement of ethical practice in many UN-member states attempting to adopt these common frameworks.

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: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.529
Threshold uncertainty score0.790

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 head0.134
GPT teacher head0.448
Teacher spread0.314 · 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