MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W47337374 · doi:10.60082/2817-5069.2608

Making Matters Worse: The Safe Streets and Communities Act and the Ongoing Crisis of Indigenous Over-Incarceration

2013· article· en· W47337374 on OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff
Ryan Newell

Bibliographic record

VenueOsgoode Hall law journal · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicCriminal Justice and Corrections Analysis
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIndigenousCharterSupreme courtPunishment (psychology)CriminologyPolitical scienceColonialismLawRepresentation (politics)Meaning (existential)SociologyPsychologySocial psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Safe Streets and Communities Act (SSCA), a recent and wide-reaching piece of the Conservative Party of Canada’s tough-on-crime agenda, will exacerbate the ongoing crisis of Indigenous over-incarceration. In this article, I review the extensive literature that addresses the causes of Indigenous over-representation in the Canadian criminal justice system before assessing the impact of R v Gladue, nearly fifteen years after the Supreme Court of Canada’s decision. I analyze how the SSCA will restrict courts’ resort to Gladue, thus resulting in the incarceration of increasing numbers of Indigenous people. I then develop one avenue of constitutional challenge to the SSCA’s mandatory minimum sentences that is tailored to Indigenous offenders. Drawing on insights from Gladue and from the cases that followed it, I argue that the meaning of “cruel and unusual punishment” under section 12 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms should shift in the case of Indigenous offenders to account for the well-established connections between colonialism and the over-incarceration of Indigenous people.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.074
Threshold uncertainty score0.535

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0190.023
Scholarly communication0.0110.003
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0030.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.027
GPT teacher head0.298
Teacher spread0.272 · 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 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

Citations7
Published2013
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOsgoode Hall law journalSame topicCriminal Justice and Corrections AnalysisFrench-language works237,207