MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3157364855 · doi:10.1111/lapo.12163

How the Canadian sentencing system impacts policy reform: An examination of the Harper era

2021· article· en· W3157364855 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueLaw & Policy · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicCriminal Justice and Corrections Analysis
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Guelph
Fundersnot available
KeywordsScrutinyContext (archaeology)Criminal justiceGovernment (linguistics)Political sciencePublic administrationReform ActEconomic JusticePolicy analysisCriminologySociologyLawHistory

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract During the Harper era (2006–2015), the Canadian government actively pursued criminal justice policy reform. Many of its efforts focused on reforming the Canadian sentencing regime by increasing the severity of penalties, including expanding mandatory minimums. Yet, Canada's rate of incarceration remains stable. The inconsistency between the considerable focus on sentencing policy by the Harper government and the lack of significant change in incarceration rates merits further scrutiny. This contrast between policy effort and policy impact also presents an opportunity to examine how the context of criminal justice policy in Canada influences the nature of policy reform. Taking up this focus, this article articulates the context of Canadian criminal justice policy and considers how this context shapes the policymaking process and policy reform.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.898
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.026
GPT teacher head0.302
Teacher spread0.276 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it