The Lived Experience of Youth Justice Policy: Responsibilization in a Carceral State
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study explores how neoliberal and neoconservative policies have impacted youth and their families involved with the Ontario youth justice system. Semi-structured qualitative interviews were conducted with 37 participants, including 23 youth and 14 family members. Constructivist grounded theory was used to analyze findings, resulting in four overarching themes: Firstly, Adopting the Dominant Discourse illustrates how a discourse of responsibility is reinforced and how youth and their families interpret those messages; secondly, Hidden Injustice describes how inadequate support and resources and identity-based oppression contribute to a system that fails to respond to their needs; thirdly, Tangible Processes of Responsibilization depicts how youth and families experience responsibilization; and the fourth theme, Exercising Agency as Resistance, provides insight into how youth and family members exercise agency in the face of the above challenges. The four themes come together to inform a discussion of how policies of responsibilization—in their construction and implementation—work together with social institutions, system actors, and those with lived experience to perpetuate a culture of responsibilization. Based on these findings, I suggest the development of an intersectional social policy framework for youth justice as a means of addressing structural factors that contribute to youth criminalization.
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 | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.021 | 0.021 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| 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".