Federal Female Incarceration in Canada: What Happened to Empowerment?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Feminist engagement with criminology began several decades ago when feminist academics, scholars and activists brought attention towards the failure of criminology to focus on women.As a result there have been several efforts by feminist criminologists to make sense of women and girls who come into contact with the criminal justice system.Literature and research conducted within this areabeginning nearly forty years agoprovides the framework and analysis for this current thesis.This particular research analyzes the experiences of female inmates and the conditions within prisons for women.In particular, this research will examine whether the promises set out within Creating Choices (1990) and the Arbour Report (1996) have been fulfilled and whether there is evidence that the Correctional Service of Canada has reformed its practices and policies in the recommended ways.Through examining specific case studiesdeaths, suicides, major and minor disturbancesthat have occurred within federal female prisons since the release of Creating Choices, it will be possible to determine whether the Correctional Service of Canada has followed the key recommendations advanced by both reports.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 teacher head, 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".