Restorative justice approach to alternatives to detention: an analysis of Canadian immigration detention
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper presents a literature review on restorative justice, immigration detention and alternatives to detention. I propose that a restorative justice approach and practices could be taken into consideration when developing ATD programs in Canada as well as for addressing current issues that surround immigration detention. Restorative justice is a process to involve, to the extent possible, those who have a stake in a specific offence and to identify and address harms, needs and obligations collectively, with the objective to ‘heal’ and put things as right as possible (Zehr, 2015). There is a research gap in the field of restorative justice and immigration in general. Restorative justice traditionally aligns itself with the criminal justice system but has potential to be applied to many areas and its application to immigration issues is a relatively new area. As these concepts can provide for a new approach towards reconciling issues involving victims and offenders outside of criminal justice, an argument can be made that there is potential for the implementation of restorative justice to have value within immigration detention. Key Words: Restorative Justice, Alternatives to Detention, Immigration detention, 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 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.017 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.013 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 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".