The Voice of the People: Can Gladue Offer a Meaningful Source of Healing to its Clients?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Aboriginal people who have been through the criminal justice system are a vulnerable population who often carry significant burdens of historic and personal trauma, including intergenerational effects, addiction, and exposure to violence.For many Aboriginal offenders, the Gladue report constitutes the first opportunity to tell their story.As such, many defendants view the Gladue process to be part of their healing process.There is question to whether the process can, in fact, assist in meaningful healing.Especially given the documented racism implicit in the court process and the lack of understanding many court actors have about Gladue.The purpose of this research project is to explore whether or not Gladue reports are able to offer a meaningful source of healing for its clients by interviewing a Gladue Report recipient and Gladue interviewer.burdened by historic and personal trauma.I would like to give a special thank you to my Committee.Jane Dickson has provided me with unconditional support and friendship during my writing and Sebastien Malette has provided me with guidance and benevolence.I would also like to thank my amazing grandparents, parents, siblings, partner, and friends for their undue support and motivational incentives presented to me throughout my writing.Finally, and most importantly, I would like to thank the participants of my study -without you this project would not be possible.Collectively, our efforts have produced a small contribution to a meaningful area of study.I anticipate future scholars to continue to broaden the area of Aboriginal studies through respectable, yet fearless, exploration and discussion.
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 | 0.005 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.011 | 0.017 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.011 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.018 | 0.004 |
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".