Bibliographic record
Abstract
The penal system has been under the influence ofparticularly three main philosophies: retributive approach, utilitarianism andrestorative justice. Retributive rationale having crime-centred outlook defendedpure punishment. It grounds on offence and severity of it in the punishment tobe given the crime. As a result of the search for solutions to increased crimeand number of criminals, retributive approach gave its place to utilitarianism.It focused on criminal centred point of view instead of crime-centred outlook.After utilitarianism, the imprisonment has been adopted to the penal systemsince 17th century. The rehabilitation of prisoners came into question withthis theory and this was introduced in the UK in the last quarter of the 18thcentury, especially as a religious based. Different rehabilitation activitieshave been implemented in the course of time as a reflection of thisunderstanding. The constant increase in the number of crimes and criminalsbrought about the searching of the reduction and prevention of crime, as aresult of this, the restorative justice was practiced in the penal system ofdeveloped countries such as the United States,the United Kingdom and Canada after1980. It has a victim-centred structure rather than crime or criminal centredand is focused on correcting the relationship between the offender and thevictim with different programmes. Restorative justice has brought new conceptsinto the justice system such as responsibility, repentance, forgiveness,reconciliation, restitution, restoration and compensation. In this paper hasbeen analysed the philosophy of imprisonment focusing on three centralapproaches, especially restorative justice.
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 | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.031 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.010 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 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".