Creating choices in the UK : re-imagining the female criminal justice system
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The prison system of the UK is riddled with sexual inequality, substantially the same procedures and facilities being extended to both male and female prisoners, representing a failure to realise that the two genders experience incarceration in materially different ways. The current formation of the system is blind to the social inequalities and difficulties which construct the identities of the majority of female offenders, resulting in an array of fundamental human rights abuses. Furthermore, decisions which significantly disadvantage female inmates are made daily, with little consideration given as to the correct bases for making such life changing choices. Time and time again however, proposals for meaningful and radical reform are met only with lethargic stalling by the Government, which seems content to pander to a punitive public desire heavily constructed by unjustified media representation. While similar processes have also operated in the Canadian context, federal female prison reform has taken a decidedly feminist tilt over the last 20 years. It is in light of this that thorough comparative examination and analysis of North American penal reform will provide a body of information which will eventually constitute an invaluable resource upon which to draw in planning the UK’s next moves towards a more substantively equal and effective female criminal justice system.
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 | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.021 | 0.042 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.017 | 0.011 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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".