Youth Justice in Canada: Theoretical Perspectives of Youth Probation Officers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Youth Criminal Justice Act, like its predecessor, the Young Offenders Act, incorporates philosophies, principles, and procedures from several theoretical models of youth justice. Concerns have been raised regarding how challenging it is for the various youth justice professionals responsible for implementing this law to apply it consistently across cases with varying characteristics. This article reports on a study of youth probation officers in British Columbia under the YCJA. It involves probation officers' reviewing five, actual, serious and/or violent young offender cases from across Canada. Their theoretical orientations to the different cases were derived from divergent models of youth justice. Despite the hypothesis that probation officers' responses would vary on the basis of case characteristics, overwhelming consistencies were evident in four of the five cases. The probation officers' approach typically rejected sentencing recommendations drawn from polarized models of youth justice, such as welfare or as crime control. Instead, probation officers preferred a model that represented a more eclectic approach, such as corporatist and modified justice.
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 | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.046 | 0.022 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.014 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".