The Risk/Reintegration Dichotomy for Community Based Federally Sentenced Women: Oppression in the Name of Justice
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Legislated through the Corrections Services Canada's Corrections and Conditional Release Act (2002), individuals who receive a federal sentence are eligible to complete their sentence at the community level under the auspices of conditional release. The goal is to assist in the rehabilitation of the offender, facilitate his or her reintegration into the community and protect society by managing re-offence risk. Yet the instrument used to determine risk and reintegration needs and outcomes is an actuarial scale based on a homogeneous white Eurocentric male population which does not take into consideration differences based on race, ethnicity, gender or social disadvantage (Webster and Doob, 2004). Research into the particular conditions experienced by Federally Sentenced Women (FSW) in Canada is a relatively new phenomenon, with the bulk emerging in the last 15 years. Research on the policy impact on service providers, namely parole officers and halfway house workers, appears to be minimal. Yet it is these workers who interpret and implement the policy. This paper contributes to this discourse through critical examination of Corrections Services Canada's (CSC) policy The Standard Operating Procedures for Community Based Supervision (SOP). The stated intent of this policy is managing risk and assisting in the reintegration into the community of all individuals under conditional release. This paper examines the impact of globalization and neo-liberal politics has on crime, fear of crime and risk. It explores how the SOP, as well as other CSC policies, is embedded in racial, cultural and gendered biases. Interviews with parole officers and halfway house workers who provide service to federally sentenced women offer insight onto their understanding of risk and reintegration for FSW as well as their perceptions of how the policy helps or hinders their role in risk management and reintegration for FSW. This paper concludes with a discussion of how these findings can impact Social Work practice and policy.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.014 | 0.033 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".