Bibliographic record
Abstract
This special issue contributes to a discussion that has become central to contemporary comparative penology: how best to explain convergences and divergences between Western states in their deployment of penal power. Its particular focus is on characteristics of local cultures and the underlying and distinct historical values that best account for jurisdictional particularities in penal policy and outcomes. The recent penal history of post-industrial societies is well described in a set of overarching, global narratives, including, for instance, those that describe and interpret the myriad consequences of the arrival of ‘late-modernity’ (e.g. Garland, 2001), as well as others that focus most on the ways in which the expansion of neo-liberal thinking and policy, and the withering of welfare states, have shaped justifications for and methods of state punishment and social control (e.g. Wacquant, 2009). However, the forces at work in these master narratives manifest differently at the national and jurisdictional levels. Thus, the punitive patterns and trajectories they shape in each are distinct and culturally embedded (Melossi, 2001), resulting in different penal policies, practices and outcomes. Two articles (by Karstedt and Snacken) in this special issue offer theoretical analyses of penal developments at the international level, while four focus on the changing penal contexts in four countries: the United States, Canada, Sweden and Australia. A comparison of their imprisonment rates per 100,000 of the population – which range from 707 (USA), to 114 (Canada), to 57 (Sweden) – presents widely different impressions of each country. A similarly divergent and variable pattern can be observed among the four selected Australian jurisdictions whose
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 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.014 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.055 | 0.009 |
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".