Estudio de la justicia restaurativa en sanciones leves cometidas por adolescentes infractores
Bibliographic record
Abstract
El primer intento de introducir la justicia restaurativa en el sistema penal juvenil se origina por primera vez en Canada en el ano 1975, a consecuencia de un hecho suscitado en 1974, en el cual dos jovenes adultos por haber ocasionado actos de vandalismo en viviendas de una comunidad al Sur de Canada, iban a ser procesados por dano a la propiedad privada, la persona que habia presenciado estos hechos fue un agente de libertad quien se encontraba en la zona el mismo que se hizo cargo del caso el cual pertenecia a una congregacion Menonita (Ruiz, 2013), grupo que venia discutiendo como implementar una aproximacion cristiana en el sistema judicial, el agente en mencion propuso al Juez que en vez de imponer la libertad vigilada y multas, como alternativa a su privacion de libertad los dos jovenes puedan tener una reunion con los propietarios de las viviendas lleguen alterativas conjuntas sobre la reparacion y compensacion por los perjuicios ocasionados a la propiedad privada, esta iniciativa tuvo mucho exito lo cual condujo a que se disenara el proyecto “Una reconciliacion para jovenes infractores” (Leon, 2013).
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".