From White Plains to Austin: The Road from the Prison Reform Revisited Conference to the Opening Up a Closed World Conference
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In 2003, from all parts of the country and from abroad, leading experts in the field of correction including judges, lawyers, corrections professionals and academics came to Pace Law School in White Plains, New York, to attend a conference entitled Prison Reform Revisited: the Unfinished Agenda. 1 They did so because, at the beginning of the 21 st Century, they felt a need to be with other experts to take stock of American prisons.It was not the artificiality of the turn of the calendar that drew them to Pace.They came for far more substantial reasons.The vast unprecedented growth of the American prison population, 2 the entry into the prison system of populations with special problems including the mentally ill and inmates with chronic and serious diseases such as AIDS and Hepatitis B, 3 and the invention of supermaximum security
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 | 0.006 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.021 | 0.013 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.027 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.013 |
| Research integrity | 0.012 | 0.017 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.034 | 0.002 |
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".