MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2238780280

Are we failing them? : an analysis of the New Zealand criminal youth justice system : how can we further prevent youth offending and youth recidivism? : a thesis presented in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts in Social Policy at Massey University, Auckland, New Zealand

2015· dissertation· en· W2238780280 on OpenAlex
Charlotte Johnson

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueMassey Research Online (Massey University) · 2015
Typedissertation
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicResearch in Social Sciences
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRecidivismCriminal justiceCriminologyDegree (music)PsychologyPolitical science
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Youth crime is a prominent social issue in New Zealand that causes emotional and physical harm and loss to the numerous victims. This research provides an analysis of the current youth criminal justice system in New Zealand, beginning with a timeline of the history and evolvement of the youth justice system to illustrate how New Zealand has arrived at the present system. The drivers of youth crime and youth involvement in criminal offending were found to be initially born from a lack of engagement with education; neurological disorders; learning difficulties and mental illness; as well as the impact of young people’s childhood, which can include exposure to family violence; drug and alcohol abuse.
\nComparative policy evaluation was applied with comparative methodology and comparative cross national research to undertake an analysis of the youth justice system in New Zealand. International comparisons were used to discover plausible and practical improvements to the current youth justice system in New Zealand. The OECD countries used in the comparative analysis included Canada, Scotland, England & Wales, United States and Austria, who between them have significantly diverse and contrasting youth justice models ranging from welfare, care and protection centred models, to community-based rehabilitation models; preventative education and support to punitive models in their response to youth crime.
\nii
\nIt was found that several aspects of New Zealand’s current youth justice system function well when compared internationally. However, the comparative analysis also highlighted that New Zealand’s youth justice system presents a problematic gap in both the sheer lack of preventative methods in response to youth offending as well as community support during the rehabilitation stage.
\nA number of policy recommendations are included within this report in response to the present shortcomings of the existing youth justice system in New Zealand. These policy recommendations provide practical solutions; adopting a preventative policy focus with plausible improvement suggestions to the existing youth justice system. The objectives are to ameliorate the youth justice system to better support youth offending and youth recidivism.

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.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.276
Threshold uncertainty score0.961

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.005
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.382
GPT teacher head0.414
Teacher spread0.032 · 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