MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2948023341 · doi:10.1002/9781119139980.ch8

Solitary Confinement and Punishment

2019· other· en· W2948023341 on OpenAlexaff
Paul Gendreau, Claire Goggin

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typeother
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicCriminal Justice and Corrections Analysis
Canadian institutionsSt. Thomas UniversityUniversity of New Brunswick
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSolitary confinementPenologyPrisonRecidivismCriminologyPunishment (psychology)Corporal punishmentPerspective (graphical)Field (mathematics)PsychologyPolitical scienceSociologySocial psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In the past several years, the use of solitary confinement (SC) in prisons has dominated debate in the field of penology. This chapter addresses a quite different question: that is, the opinion that SC may, in fact, have salutary effects. Advocates of this perspective are champions of the “get tough” school in corrections which has, in part, contributed to the proliferation of supermax prisons, particularly in the United States. The chapter briefly summarizes the literature on the effects of general and specific conditions of prison life on criminal outcomes. This includes a discussion on two topics that have been overlooked in prison research: the effects of corporal punishment and the effects of the “personality” of prisons (e.g., negative climate) on offender behavior. The chapter provides recent evidence regarding the effects of SC on misconducts and recidivism, and presents a brief discussion on how theory explains these findings.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.042

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0030.010
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0010.004
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0120.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.016
GPT teacher head0.301
Teacher spread0.285 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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

Citations5
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicCriminal Justice and Corrections AnalysisFrench-language works237,207