Anticipating prison face work: Dramaturgical risks anticipated by correctional officer recruits
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract There is increasing recognition that correctional officers (COs) serve a crucial role in their work in relation to communications underpinning discretion, especially regarding interactions with prisoners. This article examines attitudes and perceptions among Canadian federal correctional officer recruits (CORs) regarding what they anticipate are the greatest challenges they will face as new COs. We examine these discussions through the framework of Goffman's dramaturgical model of face work, especially face work within the ‘total institution’ of prisons. Our findings centre on anticipated challenges of building rapport with prisoners, including the requirements to monitor one's demeanour and ‘face work’. Characterisations of prisoners as inherently manipulative factor into CO anticipations of interactional challenges. We also consider the role that ‘soft power’ has in facilitating CO‐prisoner rapport and trust, which, we argue, ultimately undergirds opportunities in prisons to facilitate prisoner social change and successful community reintegration and desistance from crime.
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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".