Family in the Narratives of Good Life: Performing Masculinities in the Lithuanian Correctional Facilities
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Most recent works on incarcerated men have focused on prisoners’ relationship to their children and family, incarcerated fatherhood and the influence of visitation to inmates’ behaviour. The negative impact of imprisonment on family relations has also been extensively studied. Yet the intersections between imprisoned men’s attitudes towards masculinity and family remain underresearched. Drawing on 20 in-depth semi-structured interviews with imprisoned men and their criminal records in Alytus correctional facility, the article contributes to the study of “doing” gender in prisons with regard to socially excluded men’s perceptions of family. We argue that family with its different gender role allocations not only serves as one of the most important objects of good life but also engenders criminal activities. The analysis of data demonstrate that according to their perceptions of family, the incarcerated men fall into two categories of hypermasculinity and “distant” complicit masculinity. The latter dominant category of men espouses egalitarian familial roles and emphasizes parental caregiving responsibilities, emotional support and financial assistance as the most significant in current situation. Although the first group of men advocating hypermasculine behaviour are attached to the traditional family with strictly defined gender roles, they lack the desire and motivation to fulfil their expected familial obligations. For them, family is less an object of good life and intimate security than a source of frustration and disappointment. The study also shows that, as an important predictor of their masculinity and masculine behaviour, the incarcerated men’s attitudes toward family requires a more comprehensive and multifaceted investigation.
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 | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.018 | 0.014 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".