MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2598971424

Advocacy and Academia: Considering Strategies of Cooperative Engagement

2016· article· en· W2598971424 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
A. C. Deshman, Kelly Hannah‐Moffat

Bibliographic record

VenueSocial Justice A Journal of Crime Conflict & World Order · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicCriminal Justice and Corrections Analysis
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGovernment (linguistics)Coalition governmentPower (physics)VotingSociologyLawPolitical sciencePublic administrationPolitics
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In March 2009, Ian Brodie, former chief of staff for Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper, spoke at a McGill University conference on role of in government policymaking. His appraisal was frank and candid. He stated that government, specifically Conservative government that was in power until defeated by Justin Trudeau's Liberal Party in October 2015 election, really had to engage properly in question of what actually shows about various approaches to (Brodie 2009). Indeed, fact that various academics were speaking out against Conservative government's tough on policy reforms was politically advantageous for government: During my time as a practitioner of policy in Mr. Harper's government I was piqued, from time to time, to see our government attacked by students of policy for embarking on policies that some of them thought lacked a firm basis in evidence. Every lime, for example, we proposed amendments to Criminal Code, sociologists, criminologists, defense lawyers and liberals ... attacked us for proposing measures that evidence, apparently, showed did not work. It was a good thing for us politically that sociologists, criminologists, and defense lawyers were and are all held in lower repute than conservative politicians for voting public. Politically it helped us tremendously to be attacked by this coalition of university types. So we never really had to engage properly in question of what actually shows about various approaches to crime. And Canadians who noticed rising rates of youth and violent crime came to common sense conclusion that whatever was being done to tackle it was not working. (ibid.) This antipathy toward criminological knowledge has concrete effects. Since taking power in 2006,Canada's Conservative-led federal government has introduced more than 80 criminal justice, sentencing, and corrections reform bills. (1) In 2011, during first parliamentary session after successfully forming a majority government. Conservative majority passed 70 percent of criminal justice-oriented bills, including Bill C-10, an omnibus crime bill that combined amendments from nine separate bills that had failed to pass in previous sessions of Parliament. Legislative reform has continued in recent years. In January 2015 (an election year), government introduced new sweeping anti-terrorist legislation and signaled arrival of Criminal Code amendments to allow for life sentences without chance of parole (Anti-Terrorism Act 2015; see Fine 2015). As described in a letter from office of Justice Minister Peter Mackay to Ottawa Citizen, federal government's legislative agenda aims to transform justice system so that it is no longer centered on welfare of criminals and instead to refocus it on the protection of society and redress of victims-even if these measures run contrary to research and about expected outcomes of this policy (Seymour 2015). The irony of federal political antipathy toward criminological is that it occurred within a policy context saturated by calls for evidence-based practices. Although evidence-informed policy reform is now tightly linked to research funding, (2) criminologists are more preoccupied than ever about gap between criminological research findings and political policy prescriptions. Researchers have long grappled with related issues (Brodeur 1999; Rock 2014). For example, criminologists have tried to address troublesome nature of criminological knowledge, role ought to play in discourse, and impact of perceptions and political partisanship on various forms and levels of policy. More recently, various authors have advocated public criminology as one particular response to apparent disconnect between and policy. Advocates of a typically acknowledge that politics of crime policy are intrinsically controversial and deeply contested, that criminological evidence is always partial and conditional, and that policy prescriptions are often disputed and contingent on epistemological positions (Currie 2007; Garland and Sparks 2000; Tonry and Green 2003; Turner 2013; Uggen and Inderbitzin 2010). …

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.393
Threshold uncertainty score0.605

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.053
GPT teacher head0.372
Teacher spread0.319 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations4
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSocial Justice A Journal of Crime Conflict & World OrderSame topicCriminal Justice and Corrections AnalysisFrench-language works237,207