A missing piece: Embedding restorative justice and circling pedagogy into the teacher education classroom
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Restorative Justice (RJ) has the potential to create the conditions for personal and social change (Woolford, 2009), recognizing the needs, purposes and systemic injustices behind rule-breaking behaviour in schools and seeking sustainable solutions that make school safe and relevant for all its members (Hopkins, 2011). Those embracing RJ in schools, however, have understood and implemented it in fundamentally different ways: as a relational approach that challenges institutional oppression and systems of control and discipline; or as a program focused on correcting individual behaviour in the name of compliance. Although potentially significant, if individual behaviour change is sought without addressing questions of power and hegemonic practices, it is not a viable solution to a thriving school community. How do educators tap into the potential for RJ to foster a socially responsible school community in which individuals feel connected and systemic issues are addressed? Through intersecting the findings from a study investigating teacher-candidates
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 | 0.010 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.014 | 0.045 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.016 | 0.017 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.014 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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".