Bibliographic record
Abstract
Prisoners rights has become an issue of ever increasing visibility since the middle of the last century. Concern for the rights of those incarcerated within our prisons has intensified with the rise of civil liberties in both Canada and England. Both countries have introduced measures which purport to guarantee fundamental rights and freedoms to their citizens, measures which it would be reasonable to assume, would further the advance of prisoners rights. And yet, progress remains decidedly sluggish. This thesis traces the evolution of rights philosophy, then considers the parallel developments of prisoners rights, penal philosophy and civil liberties and seeks to explain why the potential for advancement has not been fully realized. Prisoners are incarcerated having been found guilty of the most grave of criminal offences and as a consequence, it is perhaps a basic instinct which determines that retribution, and only retribution is warranted in such circumstances. In the age of human rights however, there is the wider picture to consider. This is an age where compassion, mercy and benevolence are to triumph over barbarism, destruction and senseless harm. The conflict between these competing perspectives cannot be dealt with merely by enacting legislation which compels the judiciary to consider claims in a different light, and can only be resolved through a revolution beginning with definitive stance in judicial treatment of prisoner right claims which embraces the philosophy of international human rights provisions. In order to be effective, this must be assisted by bringing about changes within the prison system itself which empower the prisoner and seek to eliminate the feelings of embitterment and resentment which commonly prevail amongst prisoners. The introduction of such measures will only be acceptable if society itself recognizes that imprisonment is transitory and that those who we incarcerate within the walls of our prison, will soon be among us.
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 | 0.008 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.011 | 0.060 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.013 | 0.016 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.009 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".