'Doing Her Time': A Human Rights Analysis of Overcrowding in Brisbane Women's Correctional Centre
Bibliographic record
Abstract
At the end of 2016, the Queensland Ombudsman released his report ‘Overcrowding at Brisbane Women’s Correctional Centre’. This investigation, alongside reports from the Anti-Discrimination Commission Queensland and Crime and Corruption Commission Queensland reveal that, despite the best efforts of Queensland Correctives Services, there are a number of potential human rights violations that have arisen within Brisbane Women’s Correctional Centre as a result of ongoing overcrowding. As of 27 February 2019, Queensland has become the third Australian state or territory to pass a human rights Act, 14 years after the Australian Capital Territory introduced the Human Rights Act 2004, and 12 years after Victoria introduced the Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act 2006. In 2019, Australia remains to be the only Western democracy that is yet to introduce a national Act or bill of human rights. This article will consider the potential violations of female prisoners’ human rights inside Queensland’s largest female correctional facility, drawing on case law from Canada, Scotland, and the ECtHR to discuss their potential for recourse under Queensland’s new Human Rights Act 2019.
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 | 0.003 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.011 | 0.010 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 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".