Indigenous justice and restorative justice: exploring perceptions of convergence and divergence in British Columbia and Saskatchewan
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Indigenous justice and restorative justice: exploring perceptions of convergence and divergence in British Columbia and Saskatchewan There is a plethora of literature conflating the terms Indigenous justice and restorative justice. This collaborative action research project examined the relationship between Indigenous justice and restorative justice in British Columbia (BC) and Saskatchewan (SK), Canada. This qualitative study employed a decolonising research method. As a result, the research was overseen by a community advisory committee, composed of justice stakeholders and knowledge keepers in BC and SK. Data were collected through 26 key-informant interviews (seventeen from BC and nine from SK) and 33 focus group discussions in eight communities in BC and SK. Our findings included the definitions of restorative justice and Indigenous justice and points of convergence and divergence. This study unearthed a wide range of distinctions between Indigenous justice and restorative justice. According to some participants, ‘there’s absolutely no similarities’ between restorative justice and Indigenous justice, whereas to others restorative justice and Indigenous justice are like the ‘difference between chocolate and vanilla ice cream’. This study demonstrates the importance of dialogue between justice stakeholders and Indigenous Elders, knowledge keepers and communities to reveal the unique and important distinctions between Indigenous justice and restorative justice. This study ends with a discussion on limitations and areas for future research.
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 | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.027 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| 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".