Listening to Their Voices: Women Prisoners and Access to Justice in Manitoba
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The existing research into effective accountability and oversight of Canadian prisons has considered the situation of federally sentenced prisoners (that is, those serving sentences of two years or more) and has raised serious questions about their ability to access justice in the sense of having adequate and accessible means to ensure that their treatment and conditions of confinement are just and in compliance with the law. Relatively little is known about the state of oversight and legal review processes at the provincial level, where jail terms are short and prisoners’ rights litigation is rare. This paper attempts to begin filling that gap in knowledge by examining the situation faced by women imprisoned in provincial jails in Manitoba. The paper first surveys the existing international and domestic laws concerning prisoners rights and avenues for redress in Manitoba, before moving on to consider why and how those mechanisms are utilized or not, by listening to the voices of women who have been incarcerated recently at the Portage Correctional Centre. Finally, the paper considers what legislative or policy changes might be made to provide access to justice for provincial prisoners, drawing on recommendations and insights from the women themselves.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.025 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".