MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1971741689 · doi:10.1080/10509674.2011.546232

Understanding Incarcerated Women's Perspectives on Substance Use: Catalysts, Reasons for Use, Consequences, and Desire for Change

2011· article· en· W1971741689 on OpenAlexaffabout
Marla J. Buchanan, Kelly Murphy, Megan Martin, Mo Korchinski, Jane A. Buxton, Alison Granger‐Brown, Debra Hanson, Greg Hislop, Ann C. Macaulay, Ruth Elwood Martin

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Offender Rehabilitation · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicCriminal Justice and Corrections Analysis
Canadian institutionsCentre for Advancing Health OutcomesMcGill UniversityUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPrisonSubstance usePsychologyParticipatory action researchQualitative researchCitizen journalismCriminologyPublic relationsMedical educationPsychiatryPolitical scienceSociologyMedicineSocial scienceLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The majority of women serving short-term sentences in provincial prisons in Canada are incarcerated for illegal activities involving alcohol and substance use. Although there is a wealth of research on substance use among those serving sentences within the federal prison system, little of that literature addresses the needs and experiences of women prisoners. Additionally, very scant research exists on the experience of women incarcerated in the provincial system for crimes related to drug and alcohol use. The purpose of this article is to present the results of a Canadian participatory research project conducted in a minimum-medium security provincial prison. In conducting this project, our objectives were to understand incarcerated women's perspectives on reasons for their substance use, why they continued to use, the consequences of their use, and their suggestions for change. The data were collected and analyzed by the collaborative efforts of both the peer researchers who were incarcerated women at the time of the research and university-based researchers. Upon release, several women continued on the project as co-researchers and co-authors of this paper. We present the results of a “drug of choice” survey and the qualitative responses to open-ended questions concerning prisoners' use of drugs and alcohol.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.118
Threshold uncertainty score0.368

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.353
GPT teacher head0.353
Teacher spread0.000 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations20
Published2011
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Offender RehabilitationSame topicCriminal Justice and Corrections AnalysisFrench-language works237,207