Opportunities for Solidarity with the Criminal Justice System Against Intimate Partner Violence; Why we Need to and How We Can
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This thesis attempts to understand where the opportunities are for solidarity with the criminal justice system in an attempt to uphold the resistance of women experiencing intimate partner violence in Canada. As a country Canada spent more than $7.4 billion dollars to deal with the aftermath of intimate partner violence (Canadian Women's Foundation, 2014, p. 10). The Canadian Women’s Foundation (2014) believes that violence prevention programs and a strong criminal justice response can bring about an end to violence (p. 17). The criminal justice system is meant to be reflective of our values as a society. As a society we claim to value and support a culture of non-violence and anti-oppression for all members. We assume that the people working in the criminal justice system, including police, judges and court workers and advocates have an understanding of all individuals who come before them. This is clearly not the case as victims are less now likely to report abuse than they have been in the past (Canadian Women's Foundation, 2014, p. 11). If the criminal justice system is to be the macro level response to impact the lives of those impacted on micro levels by intimate partner violence, then we must provide the education, support and solidarity to those who are doing the work of the criminal justice system. Give them the tools and knowledge to provide the best possible response to a problem deeply rooted in our social values and norms.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".