MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2108159364 · doi:10.1177/1057567713486806

Enforcing Institutional Regulations in Prison Settings

2013· article· en· W2108159364 on OpenAlexaffabout
Valérie Beauregard, Véronique Chadillon-Farinacci, Serge Brochu, Marie‐Marthe Cousineau

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Criminal Justice Review · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicGambling Behavior and Treatments
Canadian institutionsInstitut National de la Recherche ScientifiqueUniversité de Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCoercion (linguistics)PrisonPleasureJurisdictionCriminologyPower (physics)Political sciencePopulationLawWork (physics)Psychological interventionPsychologyPublic relationsSociologyEngineeringPsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Although gambling is permitted in free society, it is prohibited in all detention facilities under the jurisdiction of the Province of Quebec. In this article, the authors focus on correctional officers’ opinions concerning this regulation, as well as their reasons for choosing whether or not to enforce it. The absence of disciplinary reports issued in this regard confirms that coercion is rarely, if ever, used to counter this activity. When interventions do occur, they are aimed less at the act of betting than at the associated undesirable behaviors, such as disturbing the peace in the cellblock. Many of the guards interviewed see gambling as a positive leisure activity, in the sense that it generates negative impacts only occasionally. It even makes their work easier because pleasure eases tensions and helps maintain tranquility in the block. Since this activity does not usually jeopardize the safety of the correctional population or the prison staff, it is often used as a conciliation tool, which is evidence of the guards’ discretionary power.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.819
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.002

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.

Opus teacher head0.118
GPT teacher head0.435
Teacher spread0.317 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations4
Published2013
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Criminal Justice ReviewSame topicGambling Behavior and TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207