CONCEPTUALIZING JUSTICE: POLICE RESPONSES TO SEX CRIMES IN PARTNERSHIP WITH CANADIAN POLICE DEPARTMENTS
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Justice exists in and through interpretations of past laws and legal procedures. Justice for sex crimes, however, is particularly complex due to the differences between victim needs and the operations of the criminal justice system. This study, using 70 semi-structured interviews and 2 focus groups from Canadian police departments, shows procedural and distributive justice as the two most prevalent forms of justice police officers use when dealing with sex crimes. The commonalities between the two forms of justice support the notion that police officers have adapted to using multiple methods of justice that are more compassionate to victims of sexual violence. In this paper, I show that Canadian police officers use characteristics from both procedural and distributive justice when responding and dealing with sex victims and their offenders. My analysis shows that police officers are encouraged to use new forms of policing to enhance positive victim relations. Contrary to research that focuses on the adverse treatment of victims, this paper will explore the promising changes in Canadian police officers’ conceptualization of justice for victims and their offenders
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 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.048 | 0.016 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".