Lessons in Access to Justice: Racialized Youths in Ontario's Safe Schools
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Access to justice is often equated with access to institutionalized dispute resolution processes, and the objective barriers that hinder such access-costs and delay most particularly-are commonly identified as the primary objects of reform efforts. In sharp contrast, when interviews and focus groups were conducted with racialized youths in Toronto regarding their experiences of access to justice in the context of school disciplinary matters, accounts of access to dispute resolution processes being impeded by costs and delay did not figure prominently. The interviews and focus groups revealed that many racialized youths scarcely ever considered accessing institutionalized dispute resolution processes largely because they lacked information that would enable them to "name" a potential legal problem, believed that "blaming" a powerful state actor was futile or would provoke retaliation, and had a deep skepticism regarding the ability of the legal system to dispense justice when "claims" are made. For the youths, understanding (as opposed to stereotyping), mutual respect, second chances, and the rule of law were the key features of access to 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 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".