MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2972046062 · doi:10.1177/0004865819868004

“They just don’t care about us!”: Police custody experiences for young men with histories of injecting drug use

2019· article· en· W2972046062 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Shelley Walker, Peter Higgs, Mark Stoové, Mandy Wilson

Bibliographic record

VenueAustralian & New Zealand Journal of Criminology · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicCriminal Justice and Corrections Analysis
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Health and Medical Research CouncilDepartment of Health and Aged Care, Australian Government
KeywordsPrisonCriminologyHarmSubjectificationPower (physics)Quarter (Canadian coin)PsychologyVictimisationSociologySocial psychologySuicide preventionPoison controlMedicineMedical emergency

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Young men (aged 18–24) represent a quarter of all episodes of police custody detention for adult males in Victoria, Australia. Despite this, little is known about their experience. Using Bacchi’s Foucauldian-influenced “What’s the problem represented to be?” approach and data from interviews with 28 young men with histories of injecting drug use who were detained in police custody prior to adult prison, we aim to address this gap in the literature. We highlight how dividing practices of discrimination made possible their subjectification as “dangerous violent Others” and how unruly behaviour and self-harm were simultaneous mechanisms for voicing their despair and frustration, for gaining power in a place in which they had very little control and for resisting dominant truths imposed upon them as worthless subjects. It is such positioning we argue, that allowed the forfeiting of their rights to basic health care, fair treatment and respect, and at the same time produced and exacerbated a range of psychological, physical and social harms. Our analysis raises important questions about police custody, notably its role in the production of inequality and further marginalisation of vulnerable groups.

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 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: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.093
Threshold uncertainty score0.953

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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 head0.050
GPT teacher head0.328
Teacher spread0.278 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
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

Citations8
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAustralian & New Zealand Journal of CriminologySame topicCriminal Justice and Corrections AnalysisFrench-language works237,207