MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Appellate Juvenile Justice: Canadian Style

2001· article· en· W2158204759 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Rick Ruddell

Bibliographic record

VenueJuvenile and Family Court Journal · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicCriminal Justice and Corrections Analysis
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRedressAppealJuvenileDispositionEconomic JusticePsychologyPolitical scienceCriminologyStyle (visual arts)LawSocial psychologyGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ABSTRACT While appeals are relatively rare in Canada, they have significant outcomes in a juvenile justice system where dispositions are determinate and either the offender or prosecution can appeal the severity of a disposition. Examining the outcomes of ten years of appeals in one province produced two noteworthy findings. First, youths initiate most appeals in Canada, but few are successful in reducing the severity of their dispositions. Second, prosecution‐initiated appeals are comparatively rare but almost always result in substantial increases in the severity of a youth's disposition. Despite the importance of these due process protections, however, Canadian youths do not have the right to state‐funded counsel for appeals, reducing their ability to redress errors or modify unusually harsh dispositions.

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 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 categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.727
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.293
Teacher spread0.269 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designNot applicable
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

Citations1
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJuvenile and Family Court JournalSame topicCriminal Justice and Corrections AnalysisFrench-language works237,207