The Case of Ashley Smith: Policy Window or Policy Failure
Bibliographic record
Abstract
On December 19, 2013, six years after the death of Ashley Smith in an Ontario women’s correctional facility, a Coroner’s Jury determined that the death of Ashley Smith was a homicide. Using policy theory related to focusing events, policy windows, problem definition and policy communities, this article reflects on the circumstances surrounding the death of Ashley Smith. It considers whether this event has created a focus on the issues pertaining to the criminalization of individuals with mental health issues. Has it acted as a catalyst for policy change, or simply represents a missed opportunity and a tragic symbol of a larger systemic policy failure? Ultimately, this article speculates on how tragic events such as this can be identified as policy windows and leveraged for social change. Keywords : Criminalization; mental health; Intersectionality; gender Resume Le 19 decembre 2013, six ans apres la mort d'Ashley Smith dans une prison pour femmes en Ontario, le jury du coroner determinait que la mort d'Ashley Smith etait un homicide. Cet article examine les circonstances entourant la mort d'Ashley Smith, utilisant des concepts de theorie de politique, comme evenement marquant, une occasion d'influer sur les politiques, la definition du probleme, et une communaute politique. Est-ce que cet evenement a rendu possible la consideration des problematiques issues de la criminalisation des personnes ayant des problemes de sante mentale? As-t-il agit come un catalyse pour des changements de politique, ou bien, representes-t-il une opportunite manquee, et un symbole tragique d'un echec de politique dans un contexte systemique plus vaste? Ultimement, cet article s'interroge sur la possibilite d'evenement tragique comme celui-ci, de servir comme une occasion d'influer sur les politiques sociale et d'effectuer des changements dans celle-ci. Mots - clefs : Criminalisation; sante mentale; analyse intersectionelle; genre
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".