Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
<p>Most juvenile justice systems deal predominantly with offenders from working class backgrounds, and thereby reflect the class biases in definitions of social harm and crime, as well as basing responses on these biases. Those most frequently found in youth detention centres and custodial institutions, for example, consist predominantly of young men with backgrounds of low income, low educational achievement, poorly paid and/or casualised employment (if any) and strained familial relations. Ethnic minority and Indigenous youth are typically overrepresented (Cunneen and White, 2011; Muncie, 2013; Cunneen <i>et al</i>., 2013).</p><p>This chapter provides a brief survey of key issues pertaining to juvenile justice in advanced capitalist countries such as Australia, the UK, the USA and Canada. Differences between a social control agenda, and a social empowerment agenda, are explored through consideration of two broad interrelated tendencies within juvenile justice. The first tendency is for criminal justice authorities to rely upon risk assessment as the preferred mode of understanding and intervening in young people's lives. The focus on the individual as potential threat or problem is reinforced by policy frameworks that stress the responsibility of young people for their own actions.<p>
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.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 it