Evaluation of a restorative justice-based, community-based program for people who have offended sexually: participant impact
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Community Justice Initiatives, Kitchener, Canada, offers a Restorative Justice program called Revive to people impacted by sexual harm, including men who have offended sexually. This volunteer-led program treats participants with compassion while holding them accountable for sexual harm perpetrated. Program goals include reducing isolation, promoting self-awareness, and fostering healing. Based on restorative justice principles, positive community reintegration and reduction of further sexual offending are the ultimate goals of the program.We evaluated information from a questionnaire administered at intake, after the 7-week phase, and again after participation in the peer-support group. Participants responded quantitatively about the impact of Revive on six sexual offense-related outcomes statements (e.g., gaining understanding of their triggers, understanding why they sexually offended). They also indicated the impact of Revive on psychosocial dimensions such as stigma perception and social support. Qualitative questions further elucidated the experience of Revive participation. Findings suggest that Revive has an impact on self-understanding of why they sexually offended, victim empathy, as well as stress reduction and increased self-esteem. We conclude that the restorative justice framework is a very hopeful, positive one and that the Revive program is effective at enacting restorative justice-based principles.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.012 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".