Finding common ground on a journey from pain to hope : CoSA as restorative justice
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This thesis examines restorative justice principles and theories in order to determine if the program Circles of Support and Accountability (CoSA) can be considered a restorative justice program.Six face-to-face unstructured interviews were also conducted with volunteer, core, and staff members of CoSA Halifax using a narrative approach.A thematic analysis of the interviews was then completed.Based on the research, it is concluded that Circles of Support and Accountability can be considered restorative justice. April 13 th , 2018How will you protect the identity of the people in my circle?You should avoid using any names when talking about your circles.If you do use names, I will delete them from the recordings right away after the interview. Will I be able to review the information collected at the end of interview?No.Who do I contact in case this interview is upsetting?Mental Health Mobile Crisis Team -(902) 429-817 or 1-888-429-8167 (toll free) Rob Elford -cosahalifax.
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 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.028 | 0.054 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.017 | 0.013 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.022 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".