Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The Pennsylvania system was a distinctive plan for prison organization centered on prisoners' long‐term solitary confinement. Although its ideological origins can be traced to the colonial period, and it manifested in the decades after the American Revolution, the Pennsylvania system primarily refers to the mode of confinement used at Pennsylvania's two state prisons between the 1820s and the 1860s. While prisoners remained in solitary confinement, reformers and prison administrators used the term “separate confinement” to emphasize that prisoners were not completely isolated: they received visits from prison employees as well as select visitors, primarily local penal reformers. The prison administrators, staff, and the local penal reformers offered primary education, often teaching illiterate prisoners to read and write, and sought to instruct the prisoners in issues of morality. Prisoners also worked within their cells on traditional crafts such as weaving, shoemaking, carpentry, and, in a few cases, blacksmithing. Though the subject of significant debate among reformers, legislators, and prison administrators interested in the best mode of prison design, the Pennsylvania system was adopted at only four prisons nationwide. By the time of the Civil War, it existed only within Pennsylvania's prisons, which abandoned the system within a decade of the war's end.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.172 | 0.034 |
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".