No Women at the Center: The Use of the Canadian Sentencing Circle in Domestic Violence Cases
Bibliographic record
Abstract
For Canadian Aboriginal women, domestic violence is pervasive. A report by the Ontario Native Women’s Association indicates that eighty percent of Aboriginal women surveyed had personally experienced family violence. In this context, Rashmi Goel looks at the use of sentencing circles to respond to wrongdoing by Aboriginal people. Current Aboriginal justice initiatives emphasize a return to traditional values and processes, manifested in one way in the sentencing circle. Yet, states Goel, such initiatives fail to restore Aboriginal women to their honored place. Contemporary Canadian sentencing circles exemplify this problem; they further injure victims in several respects. Hence, Goel argues that modern day sentencing circles are unacceptable for use in domestic violence cases. Goel pursues this argument by linking family violence in Aboriginal communities with colonial policies; outlining the dynamics of sentencing circles; focusing on the experience of Aboriginal victims of domestic violence; and suggesting possibilities for modifications of sentencing circles.
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 | 0.030 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.045 | 0.013 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.011 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".