MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W2736941109 · doi:10.1353/afa.2017.0028

Disability Incarcerated: Imprisonment and Disability in the United States and Canada ed. by Liat Ben-Moshe, Chris Chapman, and Allison C. Carey

2017· article· en· W2736941109 sur OpenAlexaboutno aff
Claire Spivakovsky

Notice bibliographique

RevueAfrican American Review · 2017
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineSocial Sciences
ThématiqueCanadian Identity and History
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésImprisonmentDisability studiesPoliticsSociologyScholarshipCriminologyGender studiesLawPolitical science

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Reviewed by: Disability Incarcerated: Imprisonment and Disability in the United States and Canada ed. by Liat Ben-Moshe, Chris Chapman, and Allison C. Carey Claire Spivakovsky Liat Ben-Moshe, Chris Chapman, and Allison C. Carey, eds. Disability Incarcerated: Imprisonment and Disability in the United States and Canada. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2014. 307 pp. $32.00. Disability Incarcerated: Imprisonment and Disability in the United States and Canada is an edited collection that seeks to examine the intersection of disability with different sites of confinement. In particular, the collection seeks to examine how [End Page 244] disability and confinement are expressed in situation with other forms of stratification in society, such as gender and race. Inspired by Foucault's work on political rationalities, the book aims to contribute to "understandings of the shared and divergent political rationalities at work in making the confinement of diverse bodies seem acceptable and useful" (x). To do this, the book provides fourteen chapters which engage with the confinement of disability in society across two parts. In the first, the histories and legacies of confining disabled and different bodies are traced in their various forms. In the second, the contemporary landscape of interlocking oppressions is explored, and the connection between disability and modern-day incarceration are brought to the fore. The collection brings together the work of scholars and activists working within and across the broad fields of disability studies, critical race theory, gender studies, and punishment and society scholarship. While not entirely the intention of the editors, the collection ultimately offers three main contributions to scholarship. First, the collection extends our appreciation of the interlocking systems of oppression that see very specific populations confined more than others. Indeed the majority of chapters within the collection try in some way to illuminate the overlapping and intersecting incarceration histories of racialized, gendered, and disabled bodies. This includes, for example, Chapman's historical account of "ethical reformulations," Ware, Rozsa, and Dias's account of the co-constructions of racism, disability, and the Prison Industrial Complex, and several others. Together, these essays outline an intricate tapestry of intersections, overlaps, and mutual constitutions between race, gender, ability, and the prison. As such, the collection advances scholarship on intersectionality and incarceration, without resorting, as Chapman aptly puts it, to the simplistic task of claiming to "find the master trope of all oppression" (28). Second, the book further expands our understanding of the different sites of incarceration which have taken shape in society over time, and the connections between the development and use of such sites. The book does this by offering several cogent accounts of the wide range of ways that disability and its interlocking oppressions have been confined through various institutions and practices beyond the traditional prison. For example, Chapman, Carey, and Ben-Moshe provide a detailed historical overview of the different modes of confinement people with disabilities have experienced over time: from undifferentiated almshouses, to specialist systems for reform and integration (e.g., specialist schools, penitentiaries, and medical institutions). Erevelles offers a reflective and compelling account of the school-to-prison pipeline, drawing convincing parallels between "the dis-locating practices of public education, the postcolonial ghetto and the segregational statutes of the New Jim Crow" (91). And Fabris and Aubrecht provide an intriguing, letter-based narrative analysis of "chemical incarceration" in institutional settings, giving new meaning to the ways that coercively administered medications "restrain the body and create dependency, using the body against the person, which results in an indefinite form of detention" (186). Such work will appeal to activists and scholars working in the broad fields of disability studies, mad studies, and punishment and society scholarship, offering them an important platform from which to engage in further conversations about the connections between seemingly separate sites of confinement. The final contribution of this book lies in its capacity to illuminate the underlying stories of nationhood and citizenship that are woven into the history of disability's incarceration. For example, both Reaume and Mirza explore the location of disability in the geopolitics of transnational migration, with Reaume providing a rich, historic account of "how incarceration in psychiatric hospitals, in 1920s Toronto in particular, was an intermediate station in the process...

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction machine sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,001
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Sans objet · Signal consensuel: Sans objet
GenreSignal candidat: Synthèse · Signal consensuel: Synthèse
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,048
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,331

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0010,003
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0020,001
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0020,001
Bibliométrie0,0030,009
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0110,005
Communication savante0,0090,003
Science ouverte0,0020,003
Intégrité de la recherche0,0030,004
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0320,006

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,010
Tête enseignante GPT0,266
Écart entre enseignants0,256 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeSans objet
Domainenon disponible
GenreSynthèse

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations0
Publié2017
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueAfrican American ReviewMême sujetCanadian Identity and HistoryTravaux en français237 207