Bibliographic record
Abstract
Researchers of responsivity call for a renewed focus on the role of staff–prisoner relationships in facilitating rehabilitative aims in correctional facilities. Although area experts suggest communication styles are crucial indicators of the success or failure of therapeutic efforts, how correctional officers (COs) communicate with prisoners to form trusting, caring relationships within correctional facilities lacks scholarly inquiry. In response, we investigate how COs working with adult male prisoners value and use their communication skills to discern which techniques are consistent with the responsivity principle. Male and female COs ( N = 42) employed in remand or correctional centers across Canada participated in semistructured in-depth interviews. Analyses of interview transcripts reveal officers self-report valuing and using prosocial communication techniques when working with male prisoners in a “relational but secure” approach. Findings suggest this approach provides the trust and respect needed for responsivity efforts to be effective. The facets of a “relational but secure” communicative approach, the vehicles by which such an approach is produced by COs, and the obstacles preventing its successful implementation are discussed.
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 | 0.048 | 0.071 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.012 | 0.081 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.015 | 0.012 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.025 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.009 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".