MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2145012917 · doi:10.1177/0734016813491965

Constructing and Performing Sexualities in the Penitentiaries

2013· article· en· W2145012917 on OpenAlexaffabout
Victoria Sit, Rosemary Ricciardelli

Bibliographic record

VenueCriminal Justice Review · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicCriminal Justice and Corrections Analysis
Canadian institutionsMemorial University of NewfoundlandInstitute for Christian StudiesUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHeteronormativityHuman sexualityPrisonPsychologyContext (archaeology)Face (sociological concept)Social psychologyGender studiesSociologyCriminology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Prison sex research has primarily focused on overt sexual behaviors, while prisoner attitudes regarding sexuality have received considerably less attention. Moreover, little is known about the implications of such attitudes for prisoner behaviors. Applying a social constructionist framework, the present study explores how sexuality is negotiated and performed during incarceration, and situates these behaviors within the context of dominant attitudes in all-male prison environments. To this end, in-depth, face-to-face interviews were conducted with male parolees from Canadian federal penitentiaries. The results suggest that heteronormativity and homophobia are pervasive in prisoner cultures and are reflected in how sexuality is discursively constructed and acted out by incarcerated men. Implications of the current findings and directions for future research are discussed.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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 score0.257
Threshold uncertainty score0.510

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.004
Scholarly communication0.0030.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.056
GPT teacher head0.353
Teacher spread0.297 · 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

Citations10
Published2013
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCriminal Justice ReviewSame topicCriminal Justice and Corrections AnalysisFrench-language works237,207