Expanding understandings of access to justice through restorative justice and alternative philosophies of justice
Bibliographic record
Abstract
With definitions of access to justice encompassing a wide range of practices, there has been a growing interest to include increased availability to alternative practices and philosophies of justice among the list of practices included in understandings of access to justice. This is especially true with respect to restorative justice (RJ) in the context of the Canadian legal framework. The following study examines several significant pieces of Canadian legislation such as the Criminal Code, the Youth Criminal Justice Act (YCJA), and the Canadian Victims Bill of Rights (CVBR) to highlight provisions which support RJ as an important means of accessing justice. Analysis of these pieces of legislation with provisions concerning the use of RJ, the comments of Members of Parliament regarding the importance of RJ and the decisions of Supreme Court justices supporting the application of RJ in Canada’s justice framework, it is clear that access to RJ practices is an important aspect of access to justice. Despite these considerations, several barriers prevent access to quality RJ programs or access to RJ altogether. These barriers include co-option of restorative programs through government policy and the institutionalization of restorative practices which results in the “sanitization” of restorative values through penal policy. In order to expand access to justice to include access to alternative practices and philosophies of justice, advocates and practitioners must emphasize these legal provisions as avenues for expanding understandings of access to justice while being cognisant of not allowing RJ processes to succumb to various phenomenon that create barriers to accessing RJ.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.013 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.015 | 0.146 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.018 | 0.019 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.014 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.012 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".