Bibliographic record
Abstract
The framework of the new penology will be applied to reveal how the contemporary objectives of incarceration have functioned to alter the role of Canadian provincial correctional officers (COs). Specifically, changing policy and legislation toward a more punitive agenda shape the daily operations of correctional facilities and how COs interact with those in their custody. Rehabilitative initiatives of any kind appear to be pushed aside, as the new or intensifying challenges associated with the growing prisoner populations and changing penal discourses are addressed. Semistructured face-to-face interviews were conducted with Canadian provincial COs and data from these interviews were analyzed to explicate the ways in which the new penology has reshaped COs’ employment in part due to their obligatory adherence to increasingly punitive managerial directives including an increased reliance on using disciplinary segregation. Findings suggest officer strain is impacted by their lack of agency and decision-making capabilities in light of these occupational changes. Our findings also evince that although COs work in a too often negative environment, many believe in the rehabilitative potential of incarceration and, further, oppose the use of segregation.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.016 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.055 | 0.007 |
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".