Bibliographic record
Abstract
In the last decade there has been a steady growth in the number of federally incarcerated people aging in prisons. These individuals have a long list of medical needs while they present a low risk to communities. However, this category of people tends to spend more time in prison than their younger counterparts and face difficulties in being released. Using original empirical data, as well as the existing literature, I argue that a high number of these individuals need to be released through a compassionate release mechanism. This article has two purposes. One is to show that compassionate release does not really exist in Canada. Section 121 of the Corrections and Conditional Release Act — parole by exception — is the closest Canada has to release on humanitarian grounds, but it fails to fulfill this role. The second purpose is to argue that the lack of a functional compassionate release provision is unacceptable, particularly in the context of the increase among the prison population of medical conditions associated with aging. I maintain that a system which is not flexible enough to consider extreme post-incarceration circumstances of an offender, and does not allow for a modification of the place where individuals serve their sentence based on these circumstances, is disconnected from any medical, penological, humanitarian, or constitutional requirements. Finally, I provide a set of recommendations for the redrafting of section 121.
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 | 0.038 | 0.064 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.018 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.011 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.021 | 0.028 |
| 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".