MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4385497443 · doi:10.18192/jpp.v32i2.6847

CSC’s Corporate Culture is the Fundamental Problem

2023· article· en· W4385497443 on OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff
George Fraser

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Prisoners on Prisons · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicInnovation and Knowledge Management
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsOrganizational culturePolitical sciencePublic relations

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A s an organization, Correctional Service Canada (CSC) not only fails to correct but, in many cases, actively makes it extremely diffi cult for correction to occur.Like any large organization, CSC has cultures and sub-cultures that have develop organically when human beings gather and particularly when individuals with common purpose begin working together.The 'Blue Wall' correctional culture dominates all others, because it runs in the veins of this hierarchical bureaucratic organization.The 'Blue Wall' culture has no start and no end -it is endemic and it is in-bred.From personal experience, observations, and what I have read in watchdog reports, as well as recent published books, it is apparent that CSC's 'Blue Wall' culture is at the heart of everything that is wrong.The 'Blue Wall' culture is the lowest common denominator reason as to why CSC is failing to meet its obligations to federally sentenced prisoners, including its obligations to uphold their human rights.This is not just my opinion, but also the expert opinion of a retired CSC Deputy Warden with 30 years experience in the trenches.He asserts, "the culture is largely responsible for most of the problems that occur within our prisons!"(Clark, 2017, p. 16).There exists "a culture of collective indiff erence towards both the prisoners and CSC's stated higher goals" (ibid).'Goals' is in reference to Correctional and Conditional Release Act (CCRA) sections 3(a) and 3(b) mandate, and nothing is going to change until there is a seismic organization shift at the top. One only has to read the February 2019 Interim Report -Study on the Human Rights of Federally Sentence Persons by the Standing Senate Committee onHuman Rights to understand the depth and scope of the challenges faced by prisoners because CSC is failing to meet its obligations to them.Everything indicates that CSC has been an abject failure to perform their CCRA section 3(a) "safe and humane custody" and section 3(b) "rehabilitation of off enders ... through the provision of programs" objectives.The following are just some of the issues identifi ed by that Senate Committee on Human Rights Interim Report: inadequate access to health care; inadequate health and dental care; insuffi cient admission to gradual and structured release; defi cient correctional programs, the one-size-fi ts-all programs are inadequate; poor conditions of confi nement; poor access to remedial measures; substandard quantity and quality of food; CSC policies often discriminate against Indigeneity, race, gender, disability, mental health,

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)0.023
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.061
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: Commentary
Teacher disagreement score0.071
Threshold uncertainty score0.172

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0230.061
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.004
Science and technology studies0.0260.028
Scholarly communication0.0400.023
Open science0.0040.011
Research integrity0.0070.014
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0130.005

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 head0.046
GPT teacher head0.263
Teacher spread0.217 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreCommentary

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

Citations0
Published2023
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Prisoners on PrisonsSame topicInnovation and Knowledge ManagementFrench-language works237,207