Domestic Violence and Restorative Justice: Advancing the Dialogue, presented at
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Interest in domestic violence work has been growing for many years in the restorative justice movement, particularly on an academic level. Resources and discussions that connected restorative justice and domestic violence were very few five years ago, but that is changing. Publications such as the collection Restorative Justice and Family Violence (ed. by Strang and Braithwaite), the multi-year consultations between restorative justice advocates, domestic violence workers and victims in the Canadian provinces of Saskatchewan and Prince Edward Island, and the prevalence of domestic violence discussions at restorative justice conferences, are all reflections of this movement’s interest in exploring what restorative justice may have to offer, if anything, in cases of domestic violence. Yet, evidence of actual work in restorative processes with victims of domestic violence and their offenders has been scarce. Several possible scenarios may account for this. First, most restorative justice practitioners realize something of the seriousness and high risks of working in this area, but perhaps lack the resources to properly address themselves to the task, and therefore do not accept domestic violence cases. Second, interested practitioners may be constrained by legal or other gatekeepers who see more risk than benefit in ‘opening the door ’ to referring domestic violence cases to restorative justice programs. Third, it is clear that some of the work that is going on in this area has caused great harm (Busch, 2002; Coward, 2000) and this may cause some practitioners to want to close the door completely, understandably enough. Another scenario is that interested programs and practitioners may desire someone else’s ‘road map ’ to use as a guide on their own journey into this area. The Victim Offender Mediation (VOM) program of the Mediation and Restorative
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 | 0.019 | 0.022 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.031 | 0.040 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.032 | 0.025 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.024 |
| Research integrity | 0.018 | 0.035 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 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".