MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2114346436 · doi:10.3138/cjccj.45.1.19

Parents and Youth Justice

2003· article· en· W2114346436 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Doug Hillian, Marge Reitsma-Street

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Criminology and Criminal Justice/La Revue canadienne de criminologie et de justice pénale · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicChild Abuse and Trauma
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Victoria
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBlameEconomic JusticeEmpowermentCriminologyPsychologyCriminal justiceSocial psychologySociologyPolitical scienceLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article examines parents in the youth justice system, based on a conceptual analysis and a phenomenological inquiry of parents with a son convicted of crimes in the youth justice system of a district in Western Canada. The difficult task of parenting a young offender is made more onerous by the societal tendency to blame parents or ignore their need for support; yet policies and practices expect parents to be the primary sources of supervision, care, and rehabilitation of youth in difficulty. The findings chronicle parental experiences of stress and loss and the hard work parents do to respond to the difficult and contradictory expectations of the youth justice system. Even when they did "all the right things" parents encountered systemic injustices and exclusion from meaningful participation in important decisions that affected their sons and themselves. The discussion explores implications, taking parental experiences into account, and proposes systemic changes, based on a community change approach to youth justice, to facilitate enhanced parental support and empowerment.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.054
Threshold uncertainty score0.108

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0100.007
Scholarly communication0.0050.002
Open science0.0000.003
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.117
GPT teacher head0.316
Teacher spread0.200 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations23
Published2003
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Criminology and Criminal Justice/La Revue canadienne de criminologie et de justice pénaleSame topicChild Abuse and TraumaFrench-language works237,207