Bibliographic record
Abstract
Mass incarceration of Indigenous peoples is a fundamental Canadian human rights problem. One response since the 1970s has been to “Indigenize” prisons by teaching Indigenous culture and history, facilitating spirituality, involving Elders and communities in rehabilitation, and creating special prisons called “healing lodges.” Criminologist proponents of “critical prison studies” are widely dismissive of these programs, with some arguing that Indigenized programming advances cultural genocide. They are wrong. University of Alberta Prison Project researchers interviewed nearly 600 prisoners in six prisons across western Canada, of whom 40 percent self-identified as Indigenous. Respondents generally praised Indigenizing initiatives for teaching them about their history and culture and helping them feel empowered and proud of their Indigenous identity. They said the initiatives helped them feel better able to cope with colonial traumas, including residential school and foster care system experiences; created a support network between Elders and fellow prisoners; and facilitated basic religious accommodation. Respondents’ criticisms focused on prison management, particularly security restrictions and staff prejudice that can prevent access to Indigenized resources. Indigenized programming supports the dignity and religious rights of incarcerated Indigenous peoples. Participants wanted expanded, more easily accessible cultural programming.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.024 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".