Making Prisoners Accountable
Bibliographic record
Abstract
There has been a renewed interest among some prison policy makers to hold inmates more accountable for their actions. The belief is that inmates require more structure and discipline in their daily activities and must demonstrate that they have earned privileges that can lead to their early release. A meta-analysis and narrative review was undertaken to determine the utility of contingency management (CM) programs for improving inmates’ performance (e.g., prison adjustment, educational/work skills) and to generate a list of program principles for managing CM programs effectively. The study finds that CM programs produce robust gains in a variety of behaviors (e.g., pro-social behaviors, education, work assignments, etc.) in prison settings. As a result, the authors provide a list of “what works” principles, categorized into implementation and treatment strategies for administering effective CM programs in prison.
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 | 0.052 | 0.238 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.012 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 0.001 |
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".