How the parents of boys experience the youth justice system
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This thesis examines how the parents of boys experience the youth justice system. It is a phenomenological inquiry conducted in the Capital Regional District of British Columbia. Based on the author's background as a youth probation officer, the study suggests that the difficult task of parenting a young offender is made more onerous by the societal tendency to blame parents, the faulty-parenting paradigm. This tendency is institutionalized in our laws, and is apparent in the literature and the crime control trend manifested in parental responsibility laws. Apart from being blamed, parents are for the most part left out of both youth justice literature and meaningful participation in the youth justice system itself. Blaming parents is demonstrated to be both unfair and unhelpful. The literature demonstrates that the faulty parenting paradigm takes no account of parenting in difficult circumstances, of the understudied effect of children on their parents, nor the structural and legal constraints that impact upon parents. Also left out are the best practice considerations of support and empowerment. The author proposes a structural social work framework to both analyse and address this issue. The research presents the results of interviews with ten parents with past encounters with the youth justice system, chronicling their experiences of stress and loss, the work of coping, and the difficult aspects of the system. The author calls for a renewed debate on youth justice that takes account of parental experience, and challenges the proposed Youth Criminal Justice Act. Proposals are made for systemic change to facilitate enhanced parental support and empowerment based on the community change model of youth justice.
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 | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.019 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.015 | 0.001 |
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".