Bibliographic record
Abstract
This review provides an overview of the position and use of restorative justice programmes in the United States of America, Canada, Australia, New Zealand and the England & Wales, together with summaries ad examples of programmes in five European jurisdictions(Germany, France, Austria, Netherlands and Belgium). In each case, the review summarizes the provision of restorative justice under four thematic headings: ? legal bases ? scope ? implementation ? evaluation The review compares and contrasts the principal features of these themes across the different jurisdictions, identifying the similarities and dissimilarities between their various restorative justice initiatives. In doing so, the review draws some lessens about good practice in restorative justice provision. Finally, the review places the work currently being undertaken within wider theoretical debates about the nature and scope of restorative justice and highlights some of the strenghts and weakness of evaluative research into its impact. The review will be of value to those who seek an understanding ofrestorative justice provision in a wider international context. Both the detailed accounts and the evaluative summary about the empirical researches for the effectiveness of restorative justice programmes in the different countries, will enable readers to compare that provisions with their own understanding of the theory and practice of restorative justice. Where restorative justice provision has displayed coherence, durability, and efficiency, its introduction and development have taken place in jurisdiction sharing the following factors: ? a strong and sustained impetus for reform ? a common ideology among those pressing for action ? open-minded and the political will of successive governments ? attention to practical detail in the formulation and implemen-tation of the chosen interventions ? a combined and continuing effort on the part of all relevant agencies ? reliance on validation research from the outset ? sound financial planing and support ? inclusiveness and ? supervision by a responsible co-ordination agency.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.005 |
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".