Bibliographic record
Abstract
Between 1967 and 1992, Aboriginal traditional Elders played increasingly important roles working with Aboriginal inmates in Canadian penitentiaries. Whereas in 1967 a small group of individuals entered prisons as Elders on a voluntary basis, unrecognized by Correctional Services Canada (CSC), over the following decades Elders and CSC developed increasingly formal relationships. By 1992 the Corrections and Conditional Release Act legislated the employment of Elders as spiritual leaders for Aboriginal peoples in prison. This transition was brought about because of an ongoing cultural dialogue between Aboriginal prisoners through inmate groups called the Native Brotherhoods, Aboriginal community organizations that worked inside prisons, and penal administrators. While Native Brotherhoods and the Elders who worked with them were central to the decolonization of prisons, in legislating the practice of Aboriginal spirituality in prisons and mandating the employment of Elders, CSC took control of Aboriginal cultural practices and alienated the community groups that once supported Elders. While the increased rights of Elders under this new framework responded to many of the needs voiced by prisoners and community members, the shift from community-based to institutional-based service represented an important change in the relationship between Aboriginal peoples and Canadian penal institutions. This paper argues that the efforts of individual Elders and Native Brotherhoods and the consolidation of control over their efforts by the penal administrations were the result of simultaneous processes of decolonization and neocolonialism.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.037 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".