Restorative Justice for Juveniles : Conferencing, Mediation and Circles
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Internationally, there is now an acceptance of the need to develop new strategies in criminal justice which reflect restorative justice principles. At the same time, theory, research and practice in restorative justice is making rapid advances. This book provides an up to date and critical account of recent developments. It describes the practice of restorative justice with respect to young offenders in a number of jurisdictions – Australia, Canada, England, New Zealand, South Africa, the United States and various continental European countries. Research findings on the three most common formats – conferencing, victims offender mediation and circles – are presented. Critical issues for the future development of restorative justice are identified. Two main themes run through the collection – the potential of restorative processes to transform criminal justice processes and the potential for aboriginal or indigenous communities to impact on conventional processes. Contributors include active researchers and leading theorists from
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it