MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4408681259 · doi:10.1080/01924036.2025.2476950

“They expect you to be better”: comparative experiences of youth and adult criminal justice systems

2025· article· en· W4408681259 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Kristin Swardh, Marsha Rampersaud

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Comparative and Applied Criminal Justice · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicCriminal Justice and Corrections Analysis
Canadian institutionsYork University
FundersSocial Sciences and Humanities Research Council of CanadaGovernment of Canada
KeywordsCriminal justiceCriminologyPsychologyEconomic JusticeSocial psychologySociologyPolitical scienceLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

While some jurisdictions in the United States and the United Kingdom acknowledge the unique developmental trajectories of young adults in their criminal justice systems, Canada continues to treat individuals aged 18 to 25 the same as older adults, lacking specialised programmes or sentencing options for this group. This paper examines the experiences of young adults in Canada’s criminal justice system and the need for justice approaches that consider their ongoing maturation. Through 41 semi-structured qualitative interviews conducted in Ontario, Canada, disparities in treatment and outcomes between the youth and adult justice systems were explored. Findings reveal that young adults, despite sharing developmental stages with youth, face punitive and unsupportive measures, expected to “know better” and “be better” upon turning 18. There is an urgent need to reform Canada’s criminal justice system to incorporate rehabilitative and community-centred approaches for young adults, thus limiting recidivism and promoting social integration.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.045
Threshold uncertainty score0.916

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.070
GPT teacher head0.381
Teacher spread0.311 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Comparative and Applied Criminal JusticeSame topicCriminal Justice and Corrections AnalysisFrench-language works237,207