On the incompatibility of ‘Western’ and Aboriginal views of Restorative Justice in Canada: a claim based on an understanding of the Cree justice
Bibliographic record
Abstract
‘Restorative justice’ (RJ) has been a popular notion in Canada. A common belief has been that ‘‘western approaches’ to RJ are compatible with that of Canada’s Aboriginals. I hold a different position. I argue that the religious beliefs of Canada’s Aboriginals are basic to their understanding of RJ. As such, their view of RJ is essentially incompatible with western approaches, which are secular. Any similarity between the two is only an apparent one produced by the indiscriminate uses of similar terms such as ‘holistic’, ‘healing’ or ‘restoration’. I support my argument by providing an account of Canada’s largest Aboriginal group’s view of RJ: the Cree. I demonstrate that it is based on certain religious principles that are absent from western approaches to RJ. As such, it is fundamentally incompatible with secular western approaches to RJ in Canada. These religious principles, basically and broadly speaking, are shared by all Aboriginal groups in Canada.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.017 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".