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 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 | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.032 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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 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".