Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper makes a conceptual application of grievability from the disenfranchisement, stigmatization and disposal that lifers, death row inmates and their loved one's experience. First, I examine the work of Doka who recognizes “disenfranchised grief” as the significant losses that result in grief that is not “openly acknowledged, socially validated, or publicly mourned” (Doka, 1989, p. 224). This theory is applicable to avenues in which personal experiences of grief are discordant with society's grieving rules, as an individual or their loved one is going through the carceral system in Canada or the US. Lifers, death row inmates and their loved ones, reflect typologies that determine experiences of disenfranchised grief, and are arguably classified as an ungrievable typology that forces them to be demonized. Next, I will examine Butler's claims that community, recognition and reciprocal exchanges could offer a critical lens that acknowledge the grievability, shared experiences of vulnerability, and history of victimization for those within the carceral system. However, disposal, the logic of elimination and unequal conception of “human” (Butler, 2003), prevent the rehabilitation of lifers and death row inmates, and perpetuate an ungrievable prison population. Lastly, I examine Park's piece that states that the goal of "transitional justice” must be the decolonization of Indigenous peoples in Canada. This begins with the "decolonization of the mind” by reconceptualizing Indigenous lives as grievable and mobilizing grief as a political resource (Park, 2015, p. 273). Similarly, I believe that the same reconceptualization and use of grief as a political resource, is necessary to achieve transitional justice for lifers and death row inmates in the US. The paper explains how lifers, death row inmates and their loved ones, are demonized by the lack of greivability, community and recognition that they are awarded.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.017 | 0.035 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.020 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".