Government reports versus offenders’ experiences: toward the resolution of discrepancies in healthcare and healthcare delivery
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: - Canadian literature on federal correctional institutions and prison living indicate a shortage inadequate and available healthcare services to meet the needs of the prison population, despite prisoners higher rates of health challenges (e.g. mental health, addictions, HIV/AIDS) in comparison to the general population. With fewer resources, concerns arise about the delivery, quantity, and quality of penal healthcare provision. Thus, the authors examines former prisoners' experiences of, in comparison to government reports on, wait-times, and request processes for healthcare services, as well as issues of access, quality of interactions with healthcare professionals and the regulations and policies governing healthcare provision. The paper aims to discuss these issues. DESIGN/METHODOLOGY/APPROACH: - The authors compare data gathered from interviews with 56 former-federal prisoners with publicly available Correctional Services Canada reports on healthcare delivery, staff-prisoner interactions, programmes and services, and overall physical and mental health to identify consistencies and inconsistencies between the government's and former prisoners' understandings of penal healthcare. FINDINGS: - Discrepancies exist between prisoners reported experiences of healthcare provision and government reports. Prisoners are dissatisfied with healthcare provision in more secure facilities or when they feel their healthcare needs are not met yet become more satisfied in less secure institutions or when their needs are eventually met. ORIGINALITY/VALUE: - Theories of administrative control frame the analyses, including discrepancies between parolee experiences and Correctional Service Canada reports. Policy recommendations to improve healthcare provision are highlighted.
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 | 0.028 | 0.102 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.012 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".