Getting the usual treatment: research censorship and the dangerous offender
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In the course of finishing dissertation research, this author encountered a wall of opposition from the Canadian penitentiary service and parole board to his proposal. For political reasons they opposed research on dangerous offenders from the perspective of ‘convict criminology’, concluding: ‘This proposal does not reflect CSC [Correctional Service of Canada] priorities and service objectives, and would result in disruption to institutional operations.’ For a period of two months, this criminologist was barred from all penitentiaries in Ontario and could not interview any prisoner. Complaints were made to Members of Parliament including the then‐Solicitor General of Canada, as well as the Office of the Correctional Investigator; even the University tried to censor the project. This article seeks to place this episode in the context of the historic marginalization to which critical and convict criminology have been subjected. It will document how the state controls the criminological research agenda and what happens when ‘voices from below’ want to have a say in penological research. Of related interest will be a discussion of how a university research ethics committee, in conjunction with the penitentiary service, tried to stop this project.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it