There's nothing offered here: the rhetoric and reality of a rehabilitative approach at the Newfoundland and Labrador Correctional Center for Women
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This thesis begins by reviewing the mandate of Newfoundland and Labrador Adult Correctional Services with specific emphases on the service's position regarding rehabilitation, and some of the assumptions underlying its mission statement. The degree to which false assumptions and under-explored external and internal factors have combined to hinder the quality and quantity of rehabilitative programs at the Newfoundland and Labrador Correctional Center for Women (NLCCW), form the main crux of the thesis. Internal factors considered include offender demographics and correctional officer work orientations. External forces consist of the location and structural design of the institution, as well as social, political, and economic considerations. Data, largely in the form of semi-structured interviews, were collected between April and June, 1999. Key informants included female prisoners, correctional officers, prison administrators, and treatment personnel. These data are augmented by selective observations and secondary sources. Findings are informed by concepts and ideas derived from feminist, sociological, and criminological theories of crime, as well as the theory of human motivation. The thesis concludes by providing a summary of the main findings, avenues of future research, and some policy alternatives for interested parties.
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 | 0.008 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.052 | 0.058 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.015 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".