Barriers Experienced by First Nations Deaf People in the Justice System
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Anecdotal evidence strongly suggests that members of the First Nations Deaf community experience more barriers when engaging with the criminal justice system than those who are not deaf. Therefore, our purpose for writing this article is to highlight legal and policy issues related to First Nations Deaf people, including perspectives of professionals working with these communities, living in Australia who have difficulty in accessing supports within the criminal justice system. In this article, we present data from semi-structured qualitative interviews focused on four key themes: (a) indefinite detention and unfit to plead, (b) a need for an intersectional approach to justice, (c) applying the maximum extent of the law while minimizing social services-related resources, and (d) the need for language access and qualified sign language interpreters. Through this article and the related larger sustaining project, we seek to center the experiences and needs of First Nations Deaf communities to render supports for fair, just, and equitable access in the Australian criminal justice system to this historically marginalized group.
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 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.020 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.013 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".