Establishing and asserting masculinity in Canadian penitentiaries
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Prisons housing adult men have been identified as hypermasculine environments. As a gender process, masculinities are influenced by a multitude of factors. Although presentations of masculinities vary across men and over time, researchers have identified some shared masculine ideals many men try to embody. As a subset, the hegemonic or dominant form of masculinity includes elements that ensure a level of domination is held by those who embody certain traits, particularly within the context of gendered social relations. The tools and strategies prisoners use to exert or shape their masculinity within the prison social structure, however, have not yet been examined in the context of Canadian federal prisons housed in Ontario. Within the prison culture, I argue, hegemonic masculinities determine social interactions and enforce a hierarchy among prisoners where power and domination are asserted through physical, psychological and material means. How masculinities are manifested and exerted as well as how they governed social relations with other prisoners were investigated through in-depth face-to-face interviews with 56 Canadian ex-prisoners. Findings suggest ‘prison’ masculinities are contextually influenced and exaggerate traditional constructs of masculinity evident in larger society. The hypermasculine nature of the prison experience, the oppressive and hierarchical nature of masculinities in prison and the limited opportunities for the expression of masculinities by prisoners are discussed.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.024 | 0.011 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".