“We Are a Sounding Board”: The Role of Community Volunteers in a Restorative Justice Program
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT Incorporating community volunteers in restorative justice programmes is a prevalent practise that offers various benefits. However, despite these programmes' extensive reliance on volunteers, there is a significant knowledge gap regarding the roles they play. The aim of this study was to address this gap by examining how stakeholders and participants in Circles of Peace, a restorative justice programme for domestic violence, perceived the role of community volunteers. To underpin this examination, the Communities of Practise theoretical framework was used. Multiple interviews were conducted with 16 circle participants and stakeholders, in the form of individual interviews and in focus groups and were analysed using interpretive phenomenological analysis. Three themes emerged from the participants' narratives: (1) Representation roles; (2) Support and nurture roles; and (3) Reintegration roles. The findings suggest that volunteers in the Circles of Peace programme play multifaceted roles that extend beyond traditional support functions. These roles can potentially have a profound impact on the experiences of the circle participants, highlighting the practical implications of our research for the design and implementation of restorative justice programs.
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 | 0.016 | 0.020 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.015 | 0.013 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".