Criminal Justice Policy Transfer and Prison Counter-Radicalization: Examining Canadian Participation in the Roma-Lyon Group
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Threats of radicalization have become dominant tropes for Western security agencies. This article examines efforts to address radicalization in the penal setting. Examining the prison counter-radicalization project directed by the secretive G8 Roma-Lyon Group, the article details Canadian participation on the basis of wanting to acquire counter-radicalization best practices from abroad. Contributing to criminal justice policy transfer studies, the article highlights disjunctures between reforms programs driven by powerful actors and particular contexts where these prescribed policy reforms take shape. Characterizing the Roma-Lyon Group as a venue for norm-makers such as the United States and the United Kingdom, and Canada as a norm-taker, the article traces the transfer of counter-radicalization practices from the transnational to the national level. Underlining how the replication of counter-radicalization policies fits into trends of precautionary risk and governing through insecurity, the article concludes by highlighting what the transfer of prisoner radicalization policy means for future socio-legal research.
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 | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.023 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".