From spaces of mercy to sites of sanctuary: a historical survey of Canada’s federal prison libraries
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Since the inception of the first modern Canadian carceral structure in 1835, the prison library has existed. The condition of the prison libraries in Canadian federal institutions, as well as the diversity and quantity of their content has changed dramatically over the course of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. The modern-day federal prison library mirrors, in many ways, its “outside” Canadian public library counterpart. This thesis does not attempt to dispute or affirm the likeness between the Canadian prison and public library. Instead, in this thesis, I examine the evolution of the library from a space that reinforced hegemonic carceral control to a space where inmates could seek refuge and sanctuary. The first half of the thesis charts the emergence of the library as a, what I have termed, space mercy. This conceptualization of the library is inspired by Douglas Hay’s concept of mercy, in criminal law, as an ideological tool to reinforce hegemony. In the second half of the thesis I present a case study of the William Head Institution on Vancouver Island. Through the consulting of inmate publications, interviews, questionnaires, and other primary source material I posit that the prison library has evolved into a site of sanctuary. This term is taken from Laura Madokoro’s public history project Sites of Sanctuary. The site of sanctuary differs from the space of mercy in a number of ways and marked a distinct shift in the function and use of the prison library, by inmates, in Canada’s federal carceral institutions.
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 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.019 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.037 | 0.016 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.015 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".