Muslim Prison Chaplains in Canada and Britain
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The separation between religion and the state is widely regarded as a central feature of modernization processes, but sociological research has tended to neglect the extent to which even ‘secular states’ continue to manage religion in such institutions as prisons, hospitals and military establishments. This article extends the understanding of the state's management of religion by focusing on responses to the growth of religious diversity among prisoners and chaplains. In particular, it analyses the integration of Muslim chaplains into the prison systems of Canada and England & Wales. It is based on research – conducted between 2010 and 2012 – that investigated the frameworks governing religion in these two prison systems. This research involved analysis of official policies and regulations as well as transcripts of telephone interviews with a small sample of Muslim chaplains in both jurisdictions. The main focus of the findings reported in this article is on the implications that each prison system's arrangements for chaplaincy have for the work of Muslim chaplains and for questions about religious freedom and equality. These questions are timely in the context of controversies currently surrounding the increasing size of the Muslim prison population in England & Wales and Canada and the need for prisons in both jurisdictions to strike a fair balance between the recognition of religious diversity and the imperatives of security and equality.
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.
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 | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it