Justice across borders: A Canadian experience with the Australian juvenile justice system
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This report details my practicum experience as an international Canadian student who participated at a community-based organization known as Helping Young People Achieve (HYPA), located in South Australia. The main focus of this report is a comparative analysis of the Canadian and the state of South Australian youth justice systems. The historical contexts of each country vary; however, the countries share both similarities and differences in their approach to the development of their youth justice systems. My chosen practice perspective was the anti-oppressive approach while also developing skills using both cognitive behavioural therapy and positive psychology models. Whether it be direct practice or structural considerations, as positive psychology develops in the field of youth justice, there appears to be new opportunities for social workers and their practice. However, there continues to be significant barriers in the field of youth justice that youth and their service providers encounter in both Canada and Australia. Furthermore, the impact of colonization within both of these countries has impacted the First Nation, Metis, Inuit, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples of these lands, resulting in significant intergenerational issues in the youth justice sector. Managerialist social work practice resonated as a theme during this practicum and therefore the impacts it has had on the practice of social work is reviewed with a critical lens. These barriers are often structural, which requires an examination of how social work is practiced and how this practice contributes to these barriers. In conclusion, the past, present and intergenerational issues that often plague the youth justice system are complex social issues that require a societal response.
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 | 0.023 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.082 | 0.014 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.013 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.014 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 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".