The practical application of traditional Aboriginal healing practices as a restorative justice process, a case study of the Helen Betty Osborne story
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Restorative justice is a process whereby criminal actions are dealt with in a manner that attempts to reduce the harm caused to the victim and community. The principles and concepts of restorative justice share many similarities with traditional Aboriginal teachings, and as such, the two processes can be jointly applied to address the needs of victims, offenders, and communities. This qualitative case study explores the application of traditional Aboriginal healing practices as a restorative justice process using the Helen Betty Osborne case as an example. Primary data are from interviews conducted with several key participants during November 1998 and January 1999, and from informal discussions between October 1997 and May 1999. The thesis focuses on how participants were affected by the restorative process and the potential for this process to be incorporated into the Canadian correctional system. The restorative process in the Helen Betty Osborne case affected those involved in a variety of ways. Many indicated it was a powerful and positive experience for them; while others found it to be emotionally difficult and of more benefit to the offender than the victim. Most felt that this process, with increased supports for the victim, could be successfully incorporated into the justice system. There is a role for social workers as part of the restorative justice process in the community, in the institutions, and in the development of policy and programs. Future research should focus on how this process can be incorporated into the justice system, its effect on the victim and offender, and its effect on successful community reintegration. As well, a means of evaluating this process should be developed.
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 | 0.006 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.041 | 0.023 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".