Enfrentando a diversidade de ambientes carcerários na pesquisa em prisões: lições do meu trabalho de campo com mulheres em três prisões na Espanha
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Resumo Reflexões acerca de questões metodológicas e éticas têm progressivamente surgido na pesquisa em prisões. O propósito deste artigo é contribuir para esse debate a partir de uma abordagem feminista, considerando as particularidades do contexto prisional espanhol. O artigo irá explorar um conjunto de questões associadas à obtenção de acesso a instituições penitenciárias, a relação entre pesquisador e participantes, bem como outros aspectos do trabalho de campo, para refletir sobre suas implicações para o processo de pesquisa. Ao compartilhar experiências de pesquisa e reconhecer o papel das emoções na pesquisa social, podemos aprender uns com os outros e fortalecer os conjuntos de ferramentas disponíveis, contribuindo para a construção da pesquisa social como uma atividade genuinamente humana engajada com a justiça social.
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 | 0.007 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.018 | 0.019 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.014 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.000 |
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.
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".