'Struggling' Thr ough Public Safety: An Examination of Parole Policy and Practice in Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
According to David Garland (1990) punishment today is `a deeply problematic aspect of social life' resulting in a `crisis in penological modernism'. This study explores Garland's claim through an examination of Canadian parole policy and practice. Utilizing a governmentality analytic this study determines what rationales are assembled to support Canadian parole. This is achieved through a discourse analysis of the missions, mandates and objectives of Canadian parole policy and semi-structured interviews with Canadian parole agents working in the field. Understanding the field of Canadian parole as a `field of struggle' illuminates implications in regards to the partnerships in parole, the agency of parole agents and the assemblage of parole governance in Canada. It is argued that Garland's claim in regards to a `crisis' is unfounded in Canadian parole as there is a pervasive institutional identity evidenced by the discourses in Canadian parole policy and the practices of parole agents.
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 | 0.008 | 0.023 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.010 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.067 | 0.023 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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 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".