MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2982290590 · doi:10.5663/aps.v8i1.29333

Indigenous Carceral Motherhood: An Examination of Colonial, Patriarchal, and Neoliberal Control

2019· article· en· W2982290590 on OpenAlexafffundvenueabout
Isabel Scheuneman Scott

Bibliographic record

Venueaboriginal policy studies · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicCriminal Justice and Corrections Analysis
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
FundersSocial Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada
KeywordsPrisonIndigenousCriminologyGender studiesColonialismSociologyCriminal justicePolitical scienceEconomic JusticeLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Despite Canada’s international reputation as a world leader in women’s rights, its own policies and practices continue to target and discriminate against Indigenous women, particularly those who are entangled within the criminal (in)justice and child welfare systems (Monchalin 2016). This article synthesizes international research, with a primary focus on Canada, in order to theorize issues surrounding Indigenous women’s experiences of carceral motherhood. By drawing on critical feminist criminological and Indigenous feminist perspectives, I examine issues related to caretaking and incarceration, mothering from prison (visitations), mothering in prison (mother-child programs), and mothering after prison (parole). Despite rejecting the prison as a solution to “the crime problem,” I conclude by offering tentative recommendations on how to ameliorate Indigenous women’s experiences of carceral motherhood.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.504
Threshold uncertainty score0.997

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0140.021
Scholarly communication0.0040.002
Open science0.0010.005
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.379
Teacher spread0.359 · 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 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

Citations7
Published2019
Admission routes4
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueaboriginal policy studiesSame topicCriminal Justice and Corrections AnalysisFrench-language works237,207