MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4296230999 · doi:10.1177/26338076221126242

Unpacking correctional workers’ experiences with transgender prisoners in Nova Scotia, Canada

2022· article· en· W4296230999 on OpenAlexaffabout
Matthew S. Johnston, Ryan Coulling, Rosemary Ricciardelli

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Criminology · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicCriminal Justice and Corrections Analysis
Canadian institutionsMemorial University of Newfoundland
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNova scotiaTransgenderHarmDiversity (politics)CriminologyPolitical scienceIdentity (music)SociologyPublic relationsPsychologyGender studiesLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Empirical research on Canadian correctional workers’ successes, challenges, and attitudes towards accommodating gender diversity remains limited. Drawing on data garnered from two open-ended survey questions (n = 70) asking correctional workers in the community or institutions about their perspectives on working with trans populations, we explore how correctional workers in Nova Scotia, Canada accommodate or struggle to accommodate gender diversity in carceral settings. We found that respondents are generally mindful of issues pertaining to the safety and security of trans prisoners, usually espouse open-mindedness, and are generally able to work within correctional parameters to accommodate those with a diverse gender identity. Yet some respondents raised concerns and suspicion towards prisoners who present a safety risk to other prisoners and, in their view, may be manipulating human rights policies to cause harm to others. We take up these tensions critically and discuss the scholarly and practical implications of our findings, as well as possible avenues for future research.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
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: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.052
Threshold uncertainty score0.375

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0240.007
Scholarly communication0.0050.001
Open science0.0020.005
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.056
GPT teacher head0.307
Teacher spread0.251 · 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

Citations7
Published2022
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of CriminologySame topicCriminal Justice and Corrections AnalysisFrench-language works237,207