MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2801215705 · doi:10.21272/bel.2(1).61-69.2018

Application of Restorative Justice Theory in Aboriginal Criminal Justice Process in Canada: An Analysis

2018· article· en· W2801215705 on OpenAlex
Syed Robayet Ferdous, Repon Khan

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueBusiness Ethics and Leadership · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicCriminal Justice and Corrections Analysis
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCriminal justiceTheory of criminal justiceRestorative justiceEconomic JusticeCriminologyCONTESTPolitical scienceSociologyLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Aboriginal is the first nation in Canada. Their beliefs and behaviour, culture and tradition, and the socioeconomic process are different from traditional contemporary Canadian. Thus they do not believe traditional litigation or win-lose contest of criminal justice process rather prefer the resolution by understanding. The Canadian traditional criminal justice system comes from western approach; therefore, this system is a mismatch with aboriginal traditional culture and value. There is a significant difference between the aboriginal justice process and predominant traditional criminal justice process exist in Canada. Canadian traditional criminal justice system does not acknowledge specialized aboriginal background. As a result, contemporary Canadian criminal justice system cannot ensure the aboriginal's right. Therefore, the different study shows that the alternative criminal justice system is urgently needed for Canadian aboriginal people. This alternative criminal justice system is referred here as Restorative Justice (RJ) process.

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.

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)0.002
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 score0.089
Threshold uncertainty score0.514

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.152
GPT teacher head0.399
Teacher spread0.247 · 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