Bibliographic record
Abstract
Note: Page numbers followed by "n" indicate notes.Abolitionist movements, 196 Aboriginal Justice Initiative, 142 Adjustment, 62-63 Adverse childhood experiences (ACEs), 82 Allegations of domestic abuse, 226 Analytic(al) strategy, 8-9, 178 Anishinaabe, 157n29 Antisocial behavior, 21-22 Assembly of First Nations (AFN), 144, 157n37 Australian Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission (AHRC), 144 Australian reintegrative shaming experiments (RISE), 3, 5-6, 15n3 Authoritarian parenting, 46 "Balancing leniency and severity" policy, 202 Black Americans, 83-85 Black men, 83-84 Black violence, 85 Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (CBC), 141 Carceral policies, 136 intergenerational policy impacts, 146-148 interview findings, 148-152 literature review, 139-141 method, 137-139 participant identity, 138 policy review, 141-146 Centre for Excellence in Child and Family Welfare (CECFW), 258 Child removal, 143-144 Child safety, 237 Child's caregiver, 82 Children, 82 Children Act 1989, 226, 228 China, 196 current study, 204-212 legal protection of crime victims' rights, 203-204 research context, 199-204 RJ and crime victims' involvement, 197-199 Closing the Gap (CtG), 143 "Coercive and controlling" behavior, 224-225 Coercive mobility, 169 Collateral consequences, 61 "Collateral damage" of imprisonment, 60 Colonialism, 157n21 Communication of moral values, 4 Community Affairs References Committee (CARC), 258 Community Justice Group (CJG), 143 Community participation, breaking cycles of violence through, 265-268 Conceptual challenges, 242-243 Conferences, 2-3, 5, 7 Conformity, 8 Consent, 249-250 Constraint, 8 Contact, 112 Contemporaneous life-course transitions, 170 INDEX Convention for Elimination of all Forms of Discrimination against women (CEDAW), 244-245 Convention on Preventing and Combating Violence against Women and Domestic Violence, 242 Coresidence, 171-174, 184 Correctional Service of Canada (CSC), 142 Corrections and Conditional Release Act (CCRA), 142 Corrective Services Administrators Council (CSAC), 142-143 Couples Coping Enhancement Training (CCET), 42-43 Court orders, 227 Courts, 2-3 Crime, 174 victims involvement, 197-199 Crime Survey England Wales (CSEW), 224 Criminal justice contact, 168-169 coresidence, and family context, 171-174 forms, 170 home leaving, and home returning, 170-171 method, 175 Criminal justice processing, 9, 169 and family relationships, 3-4 and shaming, 4-5 Criminal justice reform, 215 Criminal justice system, 207-208 Criminal Law (CL), 201 Criminal Procedural Law (CPL), 201 Critical policy studies, 137 Cross-sectional design, 54 Croydon IDAC pilot, 232-236 Custodial units, 143Data analysis strategy, 46-47 Day-to-day parenting, 88 Death penalty,[196][197] 201 Deductive content analysis, 205
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 | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.821 | 0.820 |
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".