MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4417525550 · doi:10.20355/jcie29787

Privacy in the YCJA

2025· article· en· W4417525550 on OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff
R. Aubrey Abaya

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Contemporary Issues in Education · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicEducation Discipline and Inequality
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsScrutinyContext (archaeology)Criminal justiceEconomic JusticeLegislaturePrisonInformation sharingProcedural justice

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In the wake of the killing of George Floyd in 2020, global protests generated public scrutiny about policing in our communities. Between 2020 and 2022, many school boards in Canada began to re-evaluate the value of having police in schools, as school resource officers or school liaison officers, with many boards eventually electing to end these programs altogether. Interactions with police in and through schools can facilitate a process by which youth are pushed out of the school system and into the criminal justice system, commonly known as the school to prison pipeline. The Youth Criminal Justice Act (YCJA), which governs youth in conflict with the law, specifically in their interactions with the justice system and information that is permitted to be shared with other entities like schools. In part, these protections are provided to prevent stigmatization and promote rehabilitation. However, the YCJA had been amended to allow more information disclosures between police and school administrations. This article looks at the legislative history of the YCJA to provide context to these amendments. This article also explores how the court has interpreted privacy for youth under the Act, and how the privacy provisions operate in practice. Finally, it provides empirical research that relies upon interviews with key informants that shed light on the impacts of information sharing between police and schools on youth.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.467
Threshold uncertainty score0.494

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.055
GPT teacher head0.462
Teacher spread0.407 · 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 designNot applicable
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 routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Contemporary Issues in EducationSame topicEducation Discipline and InequalityFrench-language works237,207