Where is the Law in Restorative Justice? - Taken from Book - Aboriginal Self-Government in Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Restorative justice is seen by some as an important tool in moving toward, and sustaining, Aboriginal self-government. The main purpose of this chapter is to explore whether restorative justice can be usefully considered an expression and form of practice of local law, with a view to its implications for Aboriginal self-government. Specifically, the chapter explores how analysis changes with a shift from understanding restorative justice as a program to considering it an expression of local law, and therefore a critical aspect of on-the-ground self-government. The chapter addresses experiences and trends in the implementation of local law by examining the work of the Alexis First Nation Justice Committee (the Committee) in the Nakota community of Alexis First Nation, just outside Edmonton, Alberta. Considering the work of the committee as being founded on local and/or Nakota law could enable Alexis First Nation community members to (1) find other expressions of local and Nakota law at work in the community, (2) extrapolate how the legal obligations, legal norms and legal principles of local and Nakota law might be applied elsewhere, perhaps to local governing institutions, and (3) critically examine how legal norms, obligations, and principles might be applied to other issues or conflicts. These are self-governing acts and are part of what self-government should encompass. The chapter will first develop a legal framework within which to discuss the concepts of local law and, to a lesser extent, restorative justice. This framework will then be applied as a lens to discern and describe the parameters and functions of local law that derive from the work of the committee.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.022 | 0.011 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 0.001 |
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".