Bibliographic record
Abstract
This prison‐based research is grounded upon ‘reflection‐in‐action’, intertwining the accounts of a reflective prisoner and a reflective practitioner. Through use of ethnographic methods it seeks to make sense of the contradictions encountered while tutoring prisoners. The research story shows how meaning conflicts have been negotiated, not always successfully, and how prisoner choices, particularly those relating to education, are severely limited by incarceration. Taking a lemon into prison as a visual aid for a tutorial will serve to illustrate the intended (liberating) and unintended (damaging) consequences of an outsiders’ misunderstanding of the insiders’ contexts. There is a dual purpose to this enquiry: it aims to provide a general insight into the value of prison education, and a specific insight, into a particular prisoner’s learning experiences. The methods used in this study have assembled stories, which become the ‘objects of reality’. These are not just a translation of the socio‐cultural experiences of the participants, but a ‘systemic’ meaning‐making exercise between both prisoner and researcher, creating co‐equal authorship.
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 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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".