Access to Justice for Indigenous Persons Being Sentenced in Ontario: An Approach to Wicked Problems
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In 1996, Parliament passed s.718.2(e) of the criminal code of Canada, and in doing so, recognized the injustices experienced by Indigenous populations at the hands of our criminal justice system.Nearly 26 years later, and Indigenous overrepresentation in custody across Canada is still rising.This pattern of injustice raises the question, what is stopping Indigenous persons from accessing justice?By exploring the field of access to justice, and defining access to justice as containing procedural, substantive and symbolic elements, this thesis applied a unique approach to measuring access to justice based on the leading ideas and approaches of access to justice research.By focusing on the experiences of defence counsel who work within the Gladue framework of sentencing and applying an expansive conception of access to justice to guide the inquiry, this thesis attempts to shed light on the barriers to accessing justice that are faced by Indigenous persons being sentenced.
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 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.042 | 0.019 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.011 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".