North Carolina, Juvenile Court Jurisdiction, and the Resistance to Reform
Bibliographic record
Abstract
impose juvenile dispositions concurrent with adult sentences for serious juvenile offenders.'North Carolina has no such provisions.6 In fact, North Carolina has been in the minority on this issue for decades.In 1946, North Carolina was one of only four states with sixteen as the upper age limit of juvenile court jurisdiction, while the remainder extended jurisdiction up to ages seventeen through twentyone, with the majority capping it at eighteen.7 Similarly, in 2007, thirty-seven states capped juvenile court jurisdiction at age eighteen, while ten did so at seventeen, leaving North Carolina in the bottom rung with New York and Connecticut.8 North Carolina has not only been out of step with the majority of states, but it has been and continues to be at variance with the American Bar Association Standards Relating to Juvenile Delinquency, which recommend eighteen as the upper age limit of juvenile court jurisdiction.9 In 5. CONN.GEN.STAT.§ 46b-133(c) (2007) (allowing for blended sentencing); CAMPAIGN FOR YOUTH JUSTICE, supra note 3, at 36 (discussing the availability of blended sentencing in Connecticut).New York does not have blended sentencing laws.
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 | 0.006 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.020 | 0.014 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.008 | 0.009 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.014 | 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".