To Protect or To Punish: Illuminating Pathways from Care to Criminalization
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This dissertation undertakes an in-depth analysis of the compounding effects of the child welfare and criminal justice systems on young adults (ages 18 to 24) in Ontario. The research is informed by qualitative, critical race methodologies, including semi-structured interviews with 25 young adults who have been involved in both systems; 10 practicing lawyers in Ontario; and 10 Youth- in-Transition Workers. The analysis and findings are presented in two academic papers and one public policy report. \nThe first manuscript uses an intersectional framework to uncover reasons why racialized children and youth are overrepresented in the child welfare and criminal justice systems; findings reveal race-based differences exist in the treatment of accused individuals who have been in care and experience mental illness in the early stages of the legal process, from arrest to bail. The second manuscript explores understandings of risk in bail courts and uncovers ways this concept functions as an organizing principal. This analysis illustrates how care status comes to be identified as a risk factor. Together these manuscripts demonstrate ways that risk-thinking fails to account for the particular conditions, circumstances, and contexts of youth leaving care, to youths’ disadvantage. The third manuscript is a public policy report that addresses gaps in public knowledge by synthesizing existing information about the adverse outcomes experienced by youth leaving care in five areas: education; employment, poverty, and income support; housing and homelessness; criminalization; and mental and physical health and wellbeing. Using this information, recommendations focus on ways to disrupt pathways from care to criminalization. As a complete work, this dissertation analyzes ways that race impacts the experiences of youth leaving care in the criminal justice system, examines understandings of risk in bail courts, and highlights pathways from care to criminalization.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".