MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

“I’m in a Federal Prison, and I’ve Never Felt More Free”

2022· book-chapter· en· W4283319416 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Sandra M. Bucerius, Luca Berardi, Kevin D. Haggerty

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicChild Abuse and Trauma
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPrisonImprisonmentCriminologyColonialismFraming (construction)NarrativeIndigenousGender studiesContext (archaeology)PsychologyPolitical scienceSociologyHistoryLawArt

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Gresham Sykes famously identified five key deprivations of imprisonment, understood as characteristic of prison life. Recent work has extended this analysis to the distinctive pains endured by female prisoners, although little consideration has been given to the question of how incarcerated women relate to prison vis-à-vis their past traumatic experiences. This chapter foregrounds the experiences of Indigenous women serving sentences in a women’s federal prison in Alberta, Canada. We ask: How do our participants experience prison in the context of their life histories in a settler-colonial society, and how might Sykes’s five pains of imprisonment map onto their experiences? Our findings suggest that Sykes’s formulation is certainly part of the story relating to their distinctive pains, but often only a small part. The women we interviewed consistently offered countervailing narratives about their relationship to prison, and to pain more generally, that need to be understood in the context of settler colonialism. We offer cautions about the generalizability of Sykes’s “pains” framing while also contributing to our evolving understanding of the experiential dimension of settler colonialism in Canada.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.274
Threshold uncertainty score0.546

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0070.007
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0120.002

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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.278
Teacher spread0.256 · 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 designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicChild Abuse and Trauma→French-language works237,207→