MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2894929649 · doi:10.22215/etd/2015-11148

A Profile of Inmates Admitted to the Special Handling Unit in the Correctional Service of Canada

2015· dissertation· en· W2894929649 on OpenAlexaffabout
Sarah McQuaid

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typedissertation
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicCriminal Justice and Corrections Analysis
Canadian institutionsCarleton University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPrisonMaximum securityUnit (ring theory)Service (business)InstitutionDifferential (mechanical device)PsychiatryPsychologySample (material)CriminologyMedicineClinical psychologyPolitical scienceBusinessEngineeringLawMarketing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Special Handling Unit (SHU) is a prison facility that provides increased supervision and restrictions for inmates who cannot be appropriately managed at a maximum-security institution.SHU confinement differs from other types of segregation (e.g., administrative) in criteria for admission and severity of restrictions.The first purpose of this study was to identify the typical distinguishing characteristics of SHU inmates in comparison to administrative segregation inmates from a large sample of Canadian federal inmates (N = 3666).The second purpose was to identify common problems experienced by SHU inmates (N = 32), and determine the presence of subtypes of inmates for whom unique programming may be warranted.Results indicated violent behaviours, among other characteristics, to be particularly relevant for SHU inmates.However, distinct SHU subtypes were not identified.The author concluded that differential programming may not be necessary, and expressed the need for prospective research regarding the efficacy of the SHU.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.990
Threshold uncertainty score0.173

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0050.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.029
GPT teacher head0.321
Teacher spread0.292 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2015
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicCriminal Justice and Corrections Analysis→French-language works237,207→