Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Youth Criminal Justice Act (YCJA) came into effect in 2003 as a response to the overincarceration of youth that occurred under its predecessor, the Young Offender’s Act (YOA). Parliament’s intention was clear in repealing and replacing the YOA in favour of the more restorative YCJA: no longer would custody be considered an appropriate response to youth crime. More than a decade has passed since the introduction of the YCJA, and statistics reveal that it has had incredible success in reducing the rate of overall youth incarceration. What remains problematic, however, is the persistent and prevailing issue of the overincarceration of Indigenous youth. The purpose of this article is to unpack the complexity of this issue, identify its causes, and to ultimately propose different strategies to help reduce a custodial response to Indigenous youth crime. In achieving this goal, the article will begin with an overview of the YCJA and an exploration of its restorative provisions to argue that the legislation itself is not at fault. The article will then provide current statistics on the overincarceration of Indigenous youth, and subsequently, examine some of the most popular explanations as to why the issue continues to persist. Finally, and perhaps most importantly, the article will conclude by proposing several strategies – such as the implementation of more Aboriginal Youth Courts – to better address the overincarceration of Indigenous youth moving forward.
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 | 0.007 | 0.022 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.017 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".