MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4256371969 · doi:10.46692/9781447319337.007

Women’s centres

2015· other· en· W4256371969 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Leeanne Plechowicz

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typeother
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicHistorical Gender and Feminism Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction The Corston Report (Corston, 2007) made several recommendations to improve services for female offenders, a key proposal being the funding of the development of a large network of holistic, community-based ‘one stop shops’ for women in accordance with a centrally coordinated national strategic plan. Baroness Corston envisaged that women's centres should be used for women who offend or, crucially, are ‘at risk of offending’, as a diversion from police stations and court, as part of a package of intervention via community sentences, and to provide a ‘real alternative to prison’ (Corston, 2007: 10). This chapter describes the concept of women's centres as encouraged by Baroness Corston in 2007, and considers why they were viewed to be such an important step in supporting female offenders and reducing risk of offending in England and Wales. It goes on to explore their progress (or lack thereof) over the intervening years and considers the implications for their future in light of the Transforming Rehabilitation agenda. The Corston Report Momentum for providing interventions specifically designed to address female offending gathered pace through the early part of the new millennium and gained considerable attention in 2007 with the publication of three influential reports: The Corston Report (Corston, 2007); the Women offenders accommodation pathfinders report for Wales (National Probation Directorate, 2007); and a Fawcett Society commissioned report (Gelsthorpe et al, 2007). These brought together research findings on female offending related needs, what works with women, and the different models of good practice being utilised at the time (NOMS, 2007). The reports recommended women-only provision and a holistic approach, whereby women are treated as individuals with their own set of personal support needs and are empowered to take responsibility and desist from offending. Among other commendable recommendations (many discussed elsewhere in this book), Baroness Corston proposed the funding of the development of a large network of holistic, community-based ‘one stop shops’ for women in accordance with a national strategic plan to be coordinated centrally. Her recommendation was inspired by visiting three ‘one stop shops’: Calderdale Women's Centre in Halifax, the Asha Centre in Worcester and the 218 Centre in Glasgow which, in different ways, all managed to provide this holistic approach to supporting women.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.242
Threshold uncertainty score0.809

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0050.003
Scholarly communication0.0050.003
Open science0.0020.008
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.2420.051

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.

Opus teacher head0.048
GPT teacher head0.308
Teacher spread0.260 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicHistorical Gender and Feminism StudiesFrench-language works237,207