Vers la reconnaissance d’une compétence autochtone en matière de justice pénale adolescente
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Colonialism in Canada has profoundly shaped both youth protection and juvenile justice—two regimes that have historically operated within institutions that sought to rehabilitate youth whose families were seen as incapable of educating their own children. So-called “model” families and children were defined in contrast to Indigenous families and children, who were portrayed as needing to be civilised and assimilated into the non-Indigenous majority. Today, the Act Respecting First Nations, Inuit and Métis children, youth and families (2019) affirms the jurisdiction of Indigenous peoples over child and family services. Given this recognition, we argue that it is desirable for Indigenous communities also to begin taking charge of youth criminal justice. Four analytical components support this argument. First, there are significant overlaps, both in Canadian law and in various Indigenous traditions, between youth protection law and youth criminal justice law. Second, Indigenous communities have already begun assuming responsibility for youth protection, particularly following the coming into force of the 2019 federal legislation. Third, Canadian law regarding youth criminal justice is guided by standards that are similar to those that characterize Indigenous legal traditions—particularly rehabilitation, reparation for harm done, and community involvement in decision-making. Finally, the widespread phenomenon of young people with a dual mandate in youth protection and youth criminal justice suggests that their realities are intimately linked.
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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".