Bibliographic record
Abstract
A s a leading ethnographer in criminology who has conducted signifi cant in-depth observations and interviews inside prisons, Crewe (2015, p. 51) criticizes 'big picture' theorizing of punishment, noting that it often "stops at the gates of the prison, or breaches its surface somewhat barely or briefl y, judging levels of harshness or humanity largely by metrics such as imprisonment rates and prison conditions, or offi cial sources and fi rst appearances" (also see Crewe, 2009).Prisoners and their own accounts, whether mediated by scholars such as Crewe or through their own writing and ethnographies, often remain unacknowledged or become an afterthought in penal policy discussions and academic debates (Piché et al., 2014).This tendency is problematic, as the experiences of imprisonment cannot be gleaned from policy rhetoric or from standardized, quantitative assessments of the penal population (ibid, p. 52).Crewe (2015) suggests qualitative literature on penal depth, weight, tightness and breadth provides a better framework through which to understand prisoners' life experiences.Depth refers to the invasiveness of the prison regime.Weight refers to the sense of being held down or held back.Tightness refers to forms of control in carceral settings, some of which may not be as heavy or piercing as others.Breadth refers to the coverage, the scope, the all-encompassing nature of prisonization (Crewe, 2011).Overall, this literature on penal depth, weight, tightness and breadth tries to provide an alternative to broad, abstract theorizing of penality (Crewe et al., 2014) by putting emphasis on prisoners' lives rather than focusing on more abstract indicators.Such an orientation affi rms the need to hear from current and former prisoners about their experiences of these issues, as well as criminalization and imprisonment more broadly (Pollack and Eldridge, 2015), when studying the prison and its punitive counterparts operating across and beyond the penal system.Based on the longstanding work of the Journal of Prisoners on Prisons (JPP), which is now in its thirtieth year of circulation, and the much longer tradition of the penal press and prison writing (see Gaucher, 2002), we take the position that prisoners themselves are uniquely positioned to off er
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 | 0.002 | 0.026 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.019 | 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 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".