What Do Meaningful Consequences and Fair and Proportionate Accountability Mean to Youth Offered Extrajudicial Sanctions in Ontario?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Extrajudicial sanctions (EJS) under the YCJA are meant to make youth accountable in a fair and proportionate way and to be a meaningful consequence, yet little is known about whether these goals are being accomplished from the perspective of youth. This exploratory study was aimed at examining the perceptions of young persons who have accepted an EJS in a single courthouse in Ontario. Interviews were conducted with youth (N = 20) who provided critical insight into their views about valuable programs, such as counselling, and less valuable aspects, such as writing an essay about the impact of having a criminal record. Some youth revealed that the process of coming to court to be offered an EJS and accept it was more meaningful and made them more accountable than the requirements of the program itself. This research underscores the importance of considering the perspective of young people if the youth justice system is to accomplish its key goals. Such an approach may not only lead to responses that have a greater impact on their behaviour, but it may also, in turn, shift them to be more active and engaged participants in taking responsibility for their actions and the process of justice.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".