Looking Back 10 Years After the Arbour Inquiry
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
The decade of the 1990s can be marked as one of major dissension, conflict, and change within federal corrections for women in Canada. In this article, the authors reflect back on this period of time by examining the correctional ideologies, policies, and practices that were operating in the Canadian federal prison for women. Finding these policies and practices to be inherently gendered and punitive in nature, it is argued that punishment was at the time and continues to be the cornerstone of the regulation of women prisoners, and that it takes a specific, gendered form that relies on the deployment of traditional patriarchal conceptions of femininity. Drawing on interviews with correctional personnel and analyses of correctional policies and the Arbour Inquiry transcripts, this article reconstructs Correctional Service of Canada’s (CSC) responses to incarcerated women’s “unfeminine” behavior, specifically women’s self-harming behavior and their violence against others, as overly disciplinary. It is proposed that CSC’s ideological foundation, as well as the practices and policies that were operating both at the time of and following the incident at the Kingston Prison for Women that resulted in the Arbour Inquiry, remain deeply entrenched in an oppressive hierarchical structure of gender inequality. This structure fails to question how traditional conceptions of femininity shape policies and practices. It has also aided in the construction of a new genre of “misbehaved” women in corrections, which in turn has been used to justify the harsh regulatory treatment of federally sentenced women. Without challenging its traditional gender ideologies, CSC is unable to offer any alternatives to its punitive practices, which continue to operate.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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) | 0.002 | 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