MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4406002612 · doi:10.1080/10439463.2024.2446586

Twenty-five years on the boundary between state and community: revisiting the ‘Impossibility’ of restorative justice and security informalism

2025· article· en· W4406002612 on OpenAlexaff
John Topping, Allely Albert, Richard Martin

Bibliographic record

VenuePolicing & Society · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicCriminal Justice and Corrections Analysis
Canadian institutionsQueen's University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsImpossibilityRestorative justiceState (computer science)Economic JusticeBoundary (topology)Political scienceSociologyCriminologyPublic administrationLawComputer scienceMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Once considered ‘impossible’, community-based restorative justice (CBRJ) in Northern Ireland has commanded attention and criticism in equal measure for over twenty-five years. While a necessary focus of the country’s transition from conflict to peace has centred upon state-led security processes, including police reform, wider perspectives related to informal policing have remained on the margins. This paper aims to revisit critiques around the ‘impossibility’ of restorative justice, originally considered by McEvoy and Mika 2002. In doing so, the authors attempt to demonstrate that the values and principles of CBRJ have in fact transcended the highly contested and politicised security environment of Northern Ireland. In turn, the operation of a key CBRJ organisation – Community Restorative Justice Ireland – has not merely been ‘possible’ but has acted as a fulcrum for transforming community capital, re-imagining justice ownership, and moving society away from the cultures of violence long associated with Northern Ireland’s past.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.026
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.020
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.051
Threshold uncertainty score0.226

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0260.020
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.001
Science and technology studies0.0210.145
Scholarly communication0.0270.016
Open science0.0030.022
Research integrity0.0050.012
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.029
GPT teacher head0.345
Teacher spread0.316 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations2
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePolicing & SocietySame topicCriminal Justice and Corrections AnalysisFrench-language works237,207