MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Prisons of the World

2021· book· en· W4285333722 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenuePolicy Press eBooks · 2021
Typebook
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicCriminal Justice and Corrections Analysis
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsImprisonmentGulagPrisonTorturePolitical sciencePoliticsHuman rightsColonialismLawLatin AmericansCriminologySociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Using striking examples of imprisonment in different continents and cultures <italic>Prisons of the World</italic> raises fundamental questions about the manner in which governments and societies (mis)use prison as a response to a wide range of fundamental social, economic and political issues. It describes the mistreatment of women prisoners in North America and the United Kingdom and of elderly prisoners in Japan, the intractable influence of gangs in Latin America, the legacy of colonialism in South Africa and the Caribbean and the continuing influence of the Gulag system in many countries of the former Soviet Union. The book discusses the work of international bodies such as the Committee for the Prevention of Torture in Europe, the involvement of the Inter American Court of Human Rights in the Caribbean and of court interventions in respect of the excessive use of solitary confinement in Canada and the United States. There is also a description of the author’s involvement in a unique instance of prison monitoring to resolve a violent dispute between Israel and the Palestinian Authority. The book concludes by offering some positive pointers for the future. In the medium term many of the resources which are currently invested in the demand led imprisonment industry could be transferred to initiatives such as those which are known as Justice Reinvestment and in the longer term radical change could be achieved through use of the Human Development model.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.866
Threshold uncertainty score0.947

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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.

Opus teacher head0.057
GPT teacher head0.356
Teacher spread0.299 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations1
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePolicy Press eBooksSame topicCriminal Justice and Corrections AnalysisFrench-language works237,207