MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1732764338 · doi:10.22329/wyaj.v29i0.4479

Sweating it Out: Facilitating Corrections and Parole in Canada Through Aboriginal Spiritual Healing

2011· article· en· W1732764338 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
David Milward

Bibliographic record

VenueWindsor Yearbook of Access to Justice · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicCriminal Justice and Corrections Analysis
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Manitoba
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPrisonRestorative justiceCriminal justiceEconomic JusticeCriminologyValue (mathematics)Political sciencePsychologyLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Aboriginal peoples continue to be subjected to drastic over-incarceration. Much of the existing literature explores contemporary adaptations of Aboriginal justice traditions that resemble restorative justice as a solution. There is by comparison a lack of literature that considers searching for solutions during the correctional phase of the justice system, after Aboriginal persons have already been convicted and imprisoned. The objective of this paper is to explore a number of reforms in order to better facilitate rehabilitation, reintegration, and parole for Aboriginal inmates. One is to invest greater resources into culturally sensitive programming that emphasizes spiritual healing for Aboriginal inmates. This is premised on the theme of “spend now, save later” with the idea that increasing the chances for Aboriginal re-integration may represent the better long term investment than simply warehousing large numbers of Aboriginal inmates year after year. Another problem is that many Aboriginal inmates are classified as higher security risks, which results in them being cut off from needed programming. The suggestion here is that criminal history as a static factor for determining security classifications may have little predictive value for the actual security risk posed by Aboriginal inmates, and therefore should be de-emphasized. Correctional Services of Canada should seriously consider developing an Aboriginal-specific classification scale that de-emphasizes criminal history, and emphasizes instead offender participation in culturally appropriate programs and spiritual healing, and behavioural progress while in prison. Risk assessment to re-offend for purposes of granting parole may also represent a form of systemic discrimination since criminal history represents a static factor that encumbers parole for many Aboriginal inmates. Risk assessment should instead emphasize dynamic risk factors by assessing Aboriginal participation in culturally appropriate programming, and attendant behaviourial progress while in prison. The difficult issue of Aboriginal gang activity can perhaps be dealt with through a more flexible system of risk assessment that gauges a willingness to reform and dissociate from the gang lifestyle rather than require Aboriginal inmates to endure nearly permanent penalties for past involvement. Finally, the paper will suggest that it is possible to overcome the political obstacles to implementing these reforms and obtain a political mandate to pursue them after the public is made aware of the benefits they offer.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.054
Threshold uncertainty score0.390

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0250.005
Scholarly communication0.0030.001
Open science0.0030.007
Research integrity0.0010.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.074
GPT teacher head0.363
Teacher spread0.288 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2011
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueWindsor Yearbook of Access to JusticeSame topicCriminal Justice and Corrections AnalysisFrench-language works237,207