Bibliographic record
Abstract
Evaluative studies have demonstrated that victims of crime are satisfied with their participation in a restorative intervention. Meanwhile, the explanation of victim satisfaction with restorative practices remains to be established. In this article, we study factors contributing to victim satisfaction with the restorative approach and ask to what extent victim satisfaction is simply due to procedural justice. Procedural justice theory predicts that the perceived fairness of a conflict resolution procedure is not only explained by the favourability of its outcome, but also by the appreciation of procedural factors, such as trust, neutrality, respect and voice, and that procedures can be assessed irrespective of their outcome. We conducted semi-directive interviews with 34 victims of violent crime who participated in victim–offender mediation, family group conferencing or victim–offender encounters in Canada and Belgium. We found that appreciation of a restorative approach is related to it being perceived as procedurally just. However, it is also related to other factors, namely the restorative approach being flexible, providing care, centring on dialogue and permitting pro-social motives to be addressed. These factors are not accounted for by the procedural justice model. Therefore, procedural justice partially but not entirely explains victim satisfaction with restorative practices.
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 | 0.004 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.000 |
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.
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".