Working Behind Bars: Employed Prisoners' Perception of Professional Training and Employment in Prison
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The research is aimed at examining the perceptions and attitudes of prisoners employed in enterprises in prison vis-à-vis employment and deriving conclusions regarding the impact of employment on the lives of prisoners in prison and its contribution to advancing their rehabilitation. Doing time is generally a painful experience, both physically and mentally, and often adversely influences prisoners’ life after release. Programs and activities have been developed in prisons in many countries, including Israel, to mitigate these impacts and at the same time reduce recidivism following release. A key such program is employment in enterprises within the prison walls, including training of prisoners in a variety of professions. In the framework of the present qualitative research 20 prisoners employed in enterprises in Israeli prisons were interviewed, and these aired their perceptions regarding employment and its effects. Three main themes and 18 sub-themes defining the attitudes of the prisoners to the issue emerged from the interviews. The first two themes are: employment provides benefits and alleviates the pains of imprisonment; and employment helps prisoners’ rehabilitation. The third theme emerging from the statements of an isolated number of prisoners is: employment is an act of exploitation on the part of the Prison Service and serves no useful purpose. The overall conclusion of the study is that employment in enterprises in prison is generally perceived by the prisoners as positive and contributory, in terms of both reducing the damage caused by imprisonment and raising the likelihood of the prisoner being rehabilitated through employment following his release.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".