Equality and diversity agendas in criminal justice
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction Within the public sectors of western democratic societies like the UK, the US, Canada and Australia, substantial research attention and policy focus is generated by questions concerning equality and diversity. This is perhaps unsurprising, given that contemporary western societies are characterised by inequality (Thompson, 1998) and, moreover, are underpinned by modernity's ‘imperative of order’ with the concomitant belief that, with the application of the correct kinds of policies and procedures, progress can be made in relation to eliminating/reducing inequalities and oppression. In the UK, in contrast to the US and Canada where human rights legislation has generally produced a more inclusive approach to equality so that a wide range of social groupings have been the focus of concern, ‘race’ and gender have traditionally been the predominant focus. However, emerging trends in the UK suggest that a broader range of social groupings are featuring more frequently in equality legislation, policy and practice. In many instances there continue to be differences in the level of protection afforded different social groupings with respect to ‘race’/ethnicity, gender, class, faith, sexual orientation, disability and age; however, contemporary policy developments suggest that hierarchies of equality provisions are being levelled out so that there is growing harmonisation of protections afforded to different groupings. This reflects the emergence of ‘new social movements’ based on new collectivities of individuals that cut across traditional class and political affiliations, these including the feminist movement, the disability rights movement and the lesbian and gay rights movements (Woodward, 2002). New social movements have traditionally been preoccupied with building identities in opposition to mainstream society, and highlighting the oppression and discrimination that members experience. Another emerging trend within the field of equality and diversity in the UK is that at the same time that policies are being targeted at a wide range of group collectivities in relation to ‘race’/ethnicity, gender, class, faith, sexual orientation, disability and age, there is a growing sense of the artificially constructed nature of these collectivities. There is increasing awareness amongst policy makers and researchers that the distinct experiences and voices of specific communities and individuals are obscured and made invisible within the broad-based approaches to diversity that have traditionally been adopted.
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 | 0.008 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.028 | 0.096 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.025 | 0.018 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.037 |
| Research integrity | 0.014 | 0.016 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.015 | 0.001 |
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".