MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2144962396 · doi:10.1017/s0829320100009789

Echoes of Imprisonment: Women's Experiences of “Successful (Re)integration”

2009· article· fr· W2144962396 on OpenAlexaff
Laura Shantz, Jennifer M. Kilty, Sylvie Frigon

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Law and Society / Revue Canadienne Droit et Société · 2009
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicCriminal Justice and Corrections Analysis
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPrisonHumanitiesPolitical scienceImprisonmentSociologyEthnologyArtLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Résumé Les femmes qui sortent de prison continuent de faire face à des épreuves provenant de leur emprisonnement. Dans cet article, nous abordons les façons dont la prison, et par extension l'État, suivent les femmes à l'extérieur de la prison jusque dans leurs communautés. Tandis que l'État tente d'assurer une réintégration réussie des ex-prisonnières, ses politiques, reflétant un agenda néolibéral de responsabilisation individuelle, entravent possiblement les chances des femmes de réintégrer leurs communautés. Ici, nous explorons les expériences de (ré)intégration des femmes par l'entremise de témoignages d'ex-prisonnières ayant servi de longues sentences, de leur famille et de leurs défenseurs. Le contrôle que ces femmes ont connu en prison résonne dans leur vie après leur mise en liberté: elles ressentent une désagrégation, une marginalisation et un besoin de (re)négocier leur vie. Tandis que les femmes peuvent quitter la prison, le contrôle qu'elles ont subi durant leur incarcération demeure imprégné dans leur esprit et leur corps. L'État continue d'exercer, bref, une autorité sur elles à distance par les séquelles de leur emprisonnement ainsi que par une surveillance continue.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.981
Threshold uncertainty score0.039

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0150.014
Scholarly communication0.0060.003
Open science0.0010.009
Research integrity0.0020.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.013
GPT teacher head0.269
Teacher spread0.256 · 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; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
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

Citations36
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Law and Society / Revue Canadienne Droit et SociétéSame topicCriminal Justice and Corrections AnalysisFrench-language works237,207