Les initiatives de prise en charge adaptée des Premières Nations et Inuit judiciarisés au Canada. Quelques pistes de réflexion
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The treatment of Indigenous people within the Canadian criminal justice system is problematic in several ways, particularly in terms of over-representation in prison population. Based on a literature review, this article explores the initiatives carried out by correctional services and Indigenous communities to provide programs that are better suited to the realities of criminalized Indigenous people, and that can better contribute to their social reintegration into community. While these initiatives are significant in the progression of First Nations and Inuit who have been criminalized, several issues and questions remain important to raise, especially since they do not address the initial problem, namely the over-penalization of Indigenous people in Canada. / La prise en charge des Autochtones par les autorités judiciaires canadiennes est reconnue comme problématique à divers niveaux notamment en termes de surreprésentation en détention. Basé sur une revue de littérature, cet article propose une analyse des initiatives menées par les autorités correctionnelles et certaines communautés autochtones pour mettre à la disposition des justiciables autochtones des programmes mieux adaptés à leurs réalités et favorisant ainsi leur réintégration sociocommunautaire. Si ces initiatives sont significatives dans le cheminement des Premières Nations et Inuit judiciarisées, plusieurs enjeux et questionnements restent importants à soulever et ce d’autant plus qu’elles ne répondent pas au problème de départ, soit celui de la surpénalisation des Autochtones au 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 | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".