MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1954791730 · doi:10.4000/champpenal.9146

The International Conference on Penal Abolition (ICOPA)

2015· article· en· W1954791730 on OpenAlexaffabout
Claire Delisle, Maria Basualdo, Adina Ilea, Andrea Hughes

Bibliographic record

VenueChamp pénal · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicCriminal Justice and Corrections Analysis
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPraxisConceptualizationSubordination (linguistics)Power (physics)State (computer science)VitalitySociologyHarmCriminologyPolitical scienceGender studiesLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Drawing on debates observed at the fifteenth edition of the International Conference on Penal Abolition (ICOPA) that took place on Algonquin Territory at the University of Ottawa in June 2014, reflections by ICOPA 15 organizing committee and research group members, and interviews with international conference participants, this qualitative study explores four recurring themes debated within this entity: allyship between reformers and abolitionists; the extent of race analysis in abolitionist conceptualization and strategy, as well as oppressed and privileged positions within ICOPA; the power equilibrium among survivors of state or social harm, activists and academics; and deliberative vitality and decision-making within the organization. The exploration of ICOPA as a loose-knit initiative serves to elicit debate about the challenges of collective praxis in the face of co-optation, multiple oppressions, and unequal power structures shaping radical organizing and contemporary life more broadly.

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)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.010
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.049
Threshold uncertainty score0.097

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.010
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0070.008
Scholarly communication0.0080.002
Open science0.0010.007
Research integrity0.0040.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0130.001

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 head0.121
GPT teacher head0.368
Teacher spread0.247 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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

Citations5
Published2015
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueChamp pénalSame topicCriminal Justice and Corrections AnalysisFrench-language works237,207