The Works of Jürgen Habermas: A Tool for Further Understanding the Theory and Practice of Restorative Justice
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The theory of restorative justice has always lagged behind practice. As such, gaps in\ntheory have existed over time and continue to exist today, particularly in terms of\nexplaining âthe magicâ that occurs within the encounter process. By exploring the\ntheories of Jürgen Habermas, it is suggested that new frameworks can be developed that\ncan help theorists think about, and explain the experiences and outcomes central to\nrestorative processes. This paper focuses on Habermasâ theory of universal pragmatics\nand communicative action as a means to better understand the mechanisms within the\nencounter process, and the conditions necessary, to give rise to common understanding,\nagreement, learning and strengthened relationships. It then examines Habermasâ concept\nof the lifeworld and the interplay with communicative action to shed light on restorative\njusticeâs potential for community building through norm clarification, victim and\noffender reintegration and increased individual capacity.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 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".