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 “the magic” 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 Habermas’ 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 Habermas’ concept\nof the lifeworld and the interplay with communicative action to shed light on restorative\njustice’s 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 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 | 0.009 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.013 | 0.076 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.013 | 0.018 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 0.002 |
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".