Decarceral Futures: Bridging Immigration and Prison Justice towards an Abolitionist Future
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This special issue focuses on what a standpoint of carceral abolitionism brings to citizenship studies, with immigration detention as the key case study. The nine articles and editorial introduction probe the intersections of detention with current and potential forms of citizenship. The contributions collectively emphasize what citizenship studies also documents: similar to how the prison is a site of social control, immigration control is a nation-building site where access to permanent status and citizenship is closely filtered along racial, gender, class, ableist, and other lines of discrimination. Employing a plurality of case studies spanning North America, Europe, and Asia, and coming to the subject from a spectrum of interdisciplinary backgrounds, all contributors nonetheless foreground the recognition that deprivation of liberty is one of the most serious harms that someone can experience. Like the activists protesting police brutality around the world, the special issue contributors are thinking across the spectrum of de-funding policing, overhauling the 'criminal justice' system, eradicating prisons (penal abolitionism), and doing away with all forms of containment (carceral abolitionism). The collective findings reaffirm that neither the prison nor the detention centre are inevitable in the modern, democratic order. Abolishing all forms of immigration detention would open the door for the emergence of new visions of justice.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it