Supporting Indigenous people with disability in contact with the justice system: a systematic scoping review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The relationship between race, disability and criminality is complex and poorly understood. Scant information, and lack of action, exists on how to best keep Indigenous people with disability out of the justice system, and support this cohort while in the system. This systematic scoping review collates grey and peer-reviewed literature in Australia, Aotearoa (New Zealand), the United States and Canada, to gain insight into the current practices in place for justice-involved Indigenous people with disability, and list promising principles which may inform future practice. We identified 1,301 sources, and 19 of these met the inclusion criteria. Across these sources, nine key principles emerged: need for Indigenous designed, led and owned approaches; appropriately identify and respond to disability/needs; appropriate court models; appropriate diversionary options; therapeutic, trauma-informed, strengths-based and agency-building responses; facilitate connection to family, community and support networks; break down communication barriers; protect human rights; and provide post-release support.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.007 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".