Gaining insight, changing attitudes and managing ‘risk’: Parole release decisions for women convicted of violent crimes
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 discretion that is inherent in legal decision making creates ambiguity about the reasons for parole boards’ decisions. Although research has documented some of the factors shaping parole decisions for male prisoners, the release process for female prisoners remains largely unexplored. This study asks: What characteristics of violent female offenders and their offences do parole boards emphasize in their decision to release? We employ a multi-method approach to (1) determine the association between parole release and individual, offence and institutional characteristics, (2) clarify the issues that parole boards emphasize when determining whether a prisoner is ‘ready’ to return to the community and 3) analyse how parole board members reconcile past and unalterable factors in a woman’s criminal background with concerns about her future dangerousness by assessing her degree of insight into her crime/s, criminogenic factors and triggers and whether she has learned alternative strategies for managing her potential risk. Data from federally sentenced women in Canada suggest that a parole board’s assessment of a violent offender’s ability to ‘change’ positively emerges as a central concern in whether she will be granted parole. Despite their discretionary power, parole boards thus appear to reinforce a dominant correctional logic that requires women to take responsibility for their choices and target dynamic risk factors in order to reduce the likelihood of recidivism.
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) | 0.000 | 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