MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4309874665 · doi:10.1177/00328855221139866

Risky Justice of the Law: The Impact of Risk-Assessment Tools on Aboriginal Offenders’ Overrepresentation in Canada's Federal Prisons

2022· article· en· W4309874665 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Prison Journal · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicCriminal Justice and Corrections Analysis
Canadian institutionsYork University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsVirtuous circle and vicious circleCriminologyEconomic JusticeLawCriminal justiceNarrativePolitical scienceRepresentation (politics)SociologyEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Official narratives have often blamed the Aboriginal peoples of Canada for their over-representation in Canada's federal prisons. This article argues that the problem is partially due to the problematic design and application of risk-assessment tools that have produced dubious results for Aboriginal offenders. This, in turn, has resulted in a vicious circle, beginning with labeling Aboriginal offenders as high-security risk offenders, followed by the lowering of their chances of getting paroled, and ending in their long-term stays in federal prisons. This last stage, in turn, becomes justification for the other two. And so continues the circle.

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.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.469
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.032
GPT teacher head0.371
Teacher spread0.339 · 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