Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The New York, or Auburn, system was a distinctive plan for prison organization developed early in the nineteenth century. Under this plan, prisoners worked in factory‐like settings during the day and retreated to solitary cells at night. The collection of prisoners in large rooms led some commentators to call it the “congregate system,” in contrast to its main competitor, the Pennsylvania System, which kept prisoners in solitary or “separate” confinement for the duration of their sentence. Other commentators called the Auburn System the “silent system” because prisoners were forbidden from talking with, or even looking at, one another during the work day. Emerging in the early 1820s in response to a rash of prison riots and chaos, the Auburn system came to dominate American prisons by the time of the Civil War. Although the postwar period experienced some fracturing of penal facilities, some version of the Auburn System continued to dominate and even formed the basis for the Big House prisons of the 1920s and 1930s, forever shaping America's imagination of what prisons look like until, perhaps, recently.
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 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 | 0.001 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
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 teacher head, 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".