Les enjeux de la privatisation des établissements de détention
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Sommaire: Le mouvement de privatisation des prisons et des pénitenciers a connu un développement fdgurant dans les pays anglo‐saxons de 1990 à 2000. Depuis, plu‐sieurs administrations publiques, en particulier aux États‐Unis, ont réalisé que les avantages escomptés et annoncés par les grandes corporations du secteur privé n'étaient pas vraiment au rendez‐vous, au point ou on parle actuellement de l'éclate‐ment de la bulle de la privatisation. Le débat est aujourd'hui dominé par les positions extrêmes de l'entreprise privée ‐ qui continue à vanter ses établissements ‐ et des associations de défense de droits civiques et des syndicats, qui adoptent la position opposée. L'examen des recherches empiriques ayant été faites à ce sujet révèle que la majorité des études comparatives présentent des failles méthodologiques importantes qui ne permitting pas d'asseoir la prise de décision sur des bases solides. Il importe donc d'agir avec prudence dans ce secteur fortement influencé par des enjeux politiques, sociaux et communicationnels dont l'ampleur reste encore insoupconnée. Abstract: From 1990 to 2000, the trend towards the privatization of jails and penitentiaries in Anglo‐Saxon countries grew very rapidly. Since then, several public administrations, particularly in the United States, have come to realize that the benefits anticipated by the big corporations in the sector never actually materialized; in fact, we now talk of the bursting of the privatization bubble. Today, the debate is dominated by the extreme positions taken by private enterprise, which continues to boast about its institutions, and by human and trade‐union rights advocacy associations, which are adopting the opposite position. The review of empirical research on this topic indicates that most comparative studies have significant methodological flaws that undermine the foundations of the decision‐making process. It is therefore important to act with caution in this sector, which is highly influenced by political, social and communicational issues, the magnitude of which is yet unknown.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 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".