Exploring the genesis & praxis of Restorative Justice in Alberta, Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Alberta is located in Western Canada, and is bordered by British Columbia to the west, and Saskatchewan to the east. The province has a history of employing restorative justice practices that date back many years. Today, Alberta has many restorative justice platforms operating across the province. The present study sought to uncover the genesis of restorative justice in Alberta, and specifically, what has contributed to the growth of restorative justice in this province. To do this, we conducted a qualitative study, in which we interviewed 13 Key Informants from across Alberta. Responses to the question of what contributed to the growth of restorative justice in Alberta were coded and analyzed. The findings of this study are categorized into three major themes: Community, Justice System, and Government. Each of these themes explores several topics, such as community engagement and the push from grassroots organizations, the role of courts, RCMP, judges, and other leaders in the justice system, as well as government funding and programming. This presentation also explores the ‘restorativeness’ of specialized courts such as the Calgary Indigenous Court; a topic that is becoming especially important in recent years. This paper ends with 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 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.015 | 0.010 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".