Bibliographic record
Abstract
In 1996, the Canadian government introduced progressive sentencing law reforms that called for special consideration of the conditions in Aboriginal communities as legacies of colonialism and to limit the use of incarceration. At the same time, feminist-inspired law reforms sought compulsory criminalization and vigorous prosecution of gendered violence. Since that time, there has been a doubling of the rate of imprisonment of Aboriginal women, and gendered violence is three and a half times greater in Aboriginal communities. Using the sentencing decisions of two cases involving Aboriginal women convicted of manslaughter, the author explores the practice of law as a site of backlash and an appropriation of feminist-inspired antiviolence strategies. The author draws on feminist and critical race studies of restorative justice in the context of gendered violence to examine why the victimization–criminalization continuum has not been fully recognized in the practice of restorative 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 | 0.015 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.029 | 0.179 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.021 | 0.012 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.014 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.013 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".