Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract This presentation explores the contested meaning of “prison public health”. European Public Health aligns itself with legal, ethical, political and economic principles that govern human rights, the rule of law and social justice. The UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the WHO Commission on the Social Determinants of Health infer an egalitarian approach towards social justice that supports rights of all citizens to have their basic needs met, unnecessary threats to wellbeing minimised, and social competence maximised. In the spirit of the WHO Ottawa Charter for Health Promotion, this means operationalising agency of individuals and communities and of the broad structural determinants of health: economic, political, legal and institutional. In contrast, the law conventionally positions criminal responsibility with the individual perpetrator who is held responsible for their ‘offending’ behaviour. In parallel, arguments surrounding responsibility for health have abounded for many decades, with the principle of collective responsibility for health forming the ethos of the Ottawa Charter. Only recently has it been acknowledged that criminogenic and pathogenic ‘determinants’ intersect, criminal risk behaviours and health risk behaviours sharing common aetiologies. This presentation will reinforce that a public health approach towards imprisonment is fundamentally egalitarian and commitment to social justice, recognising that structure and agency intersect and that the health of the prison is as important as that of the prisoner. It will argue that it is short-sighted to attend only to prisoner behaviour if the system surrounding the prisoner is failing in its duty of care and capacity to serve society. Most prison populations represent the most vulnerable or disadvantaged sectors of society. Governments must proactively facilitate sustainable human development and protection and empowerment of vulnerable groups including those in custody.
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 | 0.009 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.032 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.010 |
| Research integrity | 0.015 | 0.012 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 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".