Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract This chapter reviews recent publications in the field of disability studies on disability and criminal justice systems, particularly through the processes of institutionalization and incarceration. The main texts that serve as the corpus for this review define disability broadly, though devote analysis to historical constructions of intellectual/developmental disability and psychosocial disorders, labels that are critically evaluated in each text as well as in this review. By concentrating on institutionalization and incarceration, these texts are specifically focused on how ‘disability’ is entangled in the criminal justice systems of Anglo legal structures (USA, Canada, England, Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland, the Republic of Ireland, New Zealand/Aotearoa, Australia) that developed out of English-speaking imperial forces. Specifically, these texts take issue with the idea that the process of deinstitutionalization, the movement of disabled individuals from enclosed facilities to inclusive community settings, was successful in liberating disabled individuals, specifically disabled black, Indigenous populations. This chapter proceeds in four sections. First, we focus on the contemporary definitions of institutionalization and incarceration across the different legal systems traversed by each author. Second, we consider the organizing tension of neoliberal capitalism as a framework through which to analyze and critique continued forms of institutionalization and incarceration. Third, we observe the need to center disabled black, Indigenous experiences of incarceration and institutionalization under the auspices of ‘inclusion’ in the supposed era of deinstitutionalization. Lastly, we move through the alternatives to the forms of institutionalization and incarceration assessed in these texts and offer directions for further critical thought.
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 | 0.006 | 0.026 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.131 | 0.010 |
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".