Bibliographic record
Abstract
Retributive approaches to confronting harmful acts like suspected sexual abuse (SSA) have often been the norm in contemporary Western cultures. Alternative restorative approaches partly inspired by indigenous traditions are growing. Conferencing, one of these restorative approaches, is the focus of our conceptual exploration in this paper. We concentrate on cases of how conferencing may be useful when traditional therapeutic approaches fail. In conferencing, it is typically the case that the person responsible for harmful acts acknowledges this. For SSA, however, we argue that the focus should rather be on the victim's suffering and alleviation of her/his harm, especially for the children. Martin Buber's I-It vs. I-Thou conceptual ideas serve as useful constructs for describing how conferencing invites a holistic approach in difficult and highly conflictual situations where conventional retributive and therapeutic approaches may fail.
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 | 0.005 | 0.032 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.013 | 0.010 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.014 |
| Research integrity | 0.010 | 0.011 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.032 | 0.006 |
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".