MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2903288939 · doi:10.29173/invoke48963

Arbitrary or Administrative: The Consequences of Unregulated Segregation

2018· article· en· W2903288939 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueINvoke · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicCriminal Justice and Corrections Analysis
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsOrder (exchange)Political scienceLaw and economicsService (business)BusinessPublic relationsPublic administrationEngineering ethicsRisk analysis (engineering)SociologyEngineeringMarketing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper explores the consequences of the Canadian practice of administrative segregation (solitary confinement) as it currently exists with few mechanisms of oversight and few regulations guiding its use. The consequences are examined from three perspectives: that of ethics, that of reintegration and, finally, that of its uneven application. These consequences are evaluated and compared to the benefits of this practice in order to provide a more objective analysis. This paper concludes by arguing that, instead of abolishing the practice of solitary confinement in its entirety, the Correctional Service of Canada should instead create more comprehensive restrictions regarding its use so as to reduce the inevitable harms produced by this practice and in turn contribute to public safety.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.549
Threshold uncertainty score0.997

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.094
GPT teacher head0.392
Teacher spread0.298 · 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