Research in carceral contexts: confronting access barriers and engaging former prisoners
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Prison systems, with the ability to reject or approve applications for conducting research with incarcerated populations, function as shapers of carceral knowledge and thus can potentially close opportunities for new qualitative studies as well as affect the quality and richness of the data obtained. This article describes a collaborative research process wherein access to current prisoners was not granted, and only former prisoners who were not on parole were eligible to participate in the study. We provide a unique reflective analysis of how access barriers altered the scope of our research and may have impacted our findings were it not for a change in our recruitment plan. We also incorporate insights from multiple literatures that speak to the value, challenges, and ethical concerns associated with doing research with former prisoners. Our contribution to the qualitative carceral literature sparks new questions worthy of further in-depth exploration, in particular how to more meaningfully involve former prisoners in the research process.
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.
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 | 0.033 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 it