Section 19 Conferencing in the Canadian Youth Criminal Justice System
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Under the authority of the Youth Criminal Justice Act (YCJA), Section 19 conferences aim to bring together relevant professionals to discuss diversionary and rehabilitation options for Canadian youth involved in the justice system. However, these options’ use and process has not been examined at the local level where practices may vary from the national vision. To offer insight into their use and processes, the current study used semi-structured qualitative interviews with 40 service providers engaged in Section 19 conferences in New Brunswick, Canada. Although there was perceived value in these conferences (i.e., youth involvement in the process, the sharing of expertise, and collaborative planning across systems), weaknesses in conference processes also were observed (i.e., systemic disorganization, inconsistency in communication and collaboration, concern about effectiveness, and limited resources and support for youth). These findings are discussed in terms of challenges that key stakeholders face in Section 19 conferences that may influence their impact, as well as considerations for areas of improvement in conferencing processes to enhance their value. Overall, Section 19 conferences should be utilized more often, which may be best achieved by clarifying the operational procedures and roles of participants, including elucidating how they can best leverage the roles of stakeholders to service the goals of effective diversion and rehabilitation.
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 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.021 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".