The forces that divide: understanding tension and unity among provincial correctional workers in Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Recognizing the importance of occupational social climates in shaping correctional work, we consider how social relations of work are understood by provincial correctional workers, including how organizational and operational factors influence such relations. Open-ended survey responses with provincial correctional workers in the provinces of Saskatchewan and Manitoba were thematically analyzed to explore perceptions of unity and tension within the occupational social terrain. We found a notable disconnect between frontline staff and senior management, marked by a bottom-up sense of mistrust and frustration. Contrary to findings elsewhere, a sense of outward suspicion did not appear to occur in parallel to a strong inward solidarity. Horizontal social relations were often described as fragmented due to factors such as divisive social practices (e.g. gossiping, cliques), normative occupational ideals, labor and work structures that create status differences and fluid work environments, and trying conditions of work. In this context, individualist rather than collectivist dispositions can come to shape working orientations, thus representing a contrast from traditional elements of frontline correctional cultures, such as in-group solidarity and loyalty.
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 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.025 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".