Giving Women their Voice: Domestic Violence and Restorative Justice in South Africa”. Paper presented at the XIth International Symposium on Victimology
Bibliographic record
Abstract
the Centre for the Study of Violence and Reconciliation. Restorative justice is becoming an increasingly familiar concept in South Africa. With early roots in traditional African forms of conflict resolution, more recent applications relate to dealing with criminal disputes between parties. It has been applied in several community based projects dealing with criminal disputes, and it forms the basis of well established practice in child diversion. The concept is also finding its way into legislation through the Child Justice Bill which is currently before Parliament. One community based project is that of the Restorative Justice Initiative (RJI),1 an NPO2 that has been implementing restorative justice in three areas in Gauteng and one in the North West Province for over two years. The project aimed to provide victim offender conferencing in criminal cases referred by the magistrate's courts, as well as by the communities in each area. The Victim Offender Conferencing model sought to be community-based and applicable within a South African context. However, it was still derivative of the models developed in Canada and New Zealand, and mainly premised on the understanding that the crimes
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 | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 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".