Moderating Hope in the Awaiting for Release: A Practical Approach for Imprisoned Female Offenders in Malaysia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The concept “hope” has always been synonymous with a force that usually leads to imaginable and feasible good and better life (Ward & Wampler, 2010). According to Snyder (2000), hope can generate useful paths to reach desired goals and signifies one’s thoughts about his or her capacity to use the pathways. This dimension of hope is pertinent for people who are confined or constricted either mentally or physically. For imprisoned offenders, hope is perhaps the only strength that still exists and that keeps them going. However, what hope would mean to the offenders differ when they are inside the prison from when they are outside, after being released. Hope at the outside is achievable for the reason that capacities can be operated by following paths (Burnett & Maruna, 2004). However, hope for getting out from a prison can be maddening or even despairing, given that a release depends on one’s verdict. The longer the sentence, then the later would the hope be accomplished. How then prisoners cope with their high hope to be released sooner when they need to serve time undergoing their judgment?For many years, people have deliberated about women and prison. Female offenders are very much affected as soon as they are sentenced to imprisonment. Ten years or even just a year of a sentence would subjectively disrupt their mental health especially for those with children. Thus, it requires lots of strength to endure a period of long and uncertain separation. Without a proper credence, high hope may raise significant frustration, instead. Hence, it is essential for female offenders to overcome the conflict of having high expectations behind the prison walls. This article explains how some Malaysian female offenders moderate their hope in prison to keep their sanity while waiting to be released.
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 | 0.009 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.000 |
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".