Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper aims to provide a comprehensive background in relation to the use of suspended sentences in Tasmania. It is intended as a companion report to the Phasing out of Suspended Sentences: Consultation Paper that sets out possible replacements for the suspended sentence in Tasmania.This paper aims to provide a comprehensive background in relation to the use of suspended sentences in Tasmania. It addresses the following aspects of the Terms of Reference:1. Examine Tasmania’s current use of suspended sentences of imprisonment for adults and young offenders including: (a) the frequency with which they are used; (b) the offences for which they are used; (c) the length of sentences; (d) breach rates; (e) sentencing practices on breach; and (f) recidivism rates including where reoffending does not result in a breach;2. Examine Tasmania’s current use of other sentencing options including actual terms of imprisonment, community based orders and conditional release orders and the possible effect on them of the abolition of suspended sentences;3. Research legislative approaches to suspended sentencing options in other jurisdictions in Australia and overseas, including an analysis of (and commentary on any published statistics on) suspended sentences and breaches and of the effect of the abolition of suspended sentences on imprisonment numbers.This paper is intended as a companion report to the consultation paper on possible replacements for the suspended sentence in Tasmania.Chapter 2 provides an overview of the current legal framework and examines the use of suspended sentences in Tasmania. It provides a comparison with the law in other Australian jurisdictions, as well as the position in Canada and in England and Wales.Chapter 3 contains the Council’s analysis of Tasmania’s current use of all sentencing options available under the Sentencing Act 1997 (Tas) in the Supreme Court. This includes actual imprisonment, fully and partly suspended sentences, community based orders and conditional release orders. It also sets out data from the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) in relation to the use of different sentencing options in other jurisdictions to provide a comparison with sentencing practice in Tasmania.Chapter 4 contains the Council’s analysis of Tasmania’s current use of all sentencing options available under the Sentencing Act 1997 (Tas) in the Magistrates Court. It also sets out data from the ABS in relation to the use of different sentencing options in lower courts in other jurisdictions to provide a comparison with sentencing practice in Tasmania.Chapter 5 provides an analysis of the breach of suspended sentences in Tasmania, sentencing practices on breach and recidivism rates including where reoffending does not result in a breach. It also discusses research that has examined breaches of suspended sentences and recidivism rates in other jurisdictions.The companion paper, Phasing Out of Suspended Sentences - Consultation Paper, can be found at http://ssrn.com/abstract=2666393
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 | 0.008 | 0.028 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.026 | 0.004 |
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".