MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4387227049 · doi:10.21428/58a8fd3e.ae2420e2

Pre-trial Detention and Bail: Criminalization of Legally Innocent Women in Canada

2023· article· en· W4387227049 on OpenAlexaffabout
Violeta Chitgian Urzúa

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicCriminal Justice and Corrections Analysis
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCriminalizationCriminologyPolitical scienceLawPsychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

On an average day in Canada, more people are held in pretrial detention than those sentenced in custody.These legal processes harshly impact marginalized groups, particularly women because they have historically been stigmatized and discriminated against in the Criminal Justice System [CJS].This article identified how the pretrial detention and bail systems exacerbate the challenges women encounter when they engage with the legal system, intensifying the adversities they've previously experienced.To achieve this, we analyzed legal frameworks, principles, and practices through the lens of various feminist criminological perspectives.Our article highlights how historical mechanisms of control and punishment have perpetuated the subordination of women in a patriarchal setting.It's crucial to recognize that criminal law has often overlooked the distinct needs and realities of women, largely because these laws and procedures were crafted by men and tailored primarily to male experiences.Therefore, educational campaigns for legal actors raising awareness about the impact of their decisions on women's lives could be a short-term strategy for helping them to make informed and holistic choices. A B S T R A C TAu Canada, il y a actuellement plus de personnes en détention provisoire que de condamnées.Ces procédures judiciaires affectent profondément les groupes marginalisés, notamment les femmes, qui sont souvent stigmatisées et discriminées au sein du système de justice pénale.Cet article examine comment le système de détention provisoire et la libération sous caution pénalise davantage les femmes lorsqu'elles sont impliquées dans le système judiciaire, renforçant ainsi les préjudices qu'elles ont déjà subis.Pour ce faire, les cadres juridiques, les principes et les pratiques ont été analysés, et ce, sous différentes perspectives criminoloques féministes.Notre article souligne comment divers mécanismes de contrôle et de punition ont historiquement maintenu les femmes dans une position subordonnée dans un contexte patriarcal.Il importe de noter que le droit pénal n'a pas suffisamment pris en compte les besoins spécifiques et les réalités des femmes.En grande partie, parce que ces lois et procédures ont été conçues par des hommes et pour des hommes.Par conséquent, des campagnes éducatives destinées aux acteurs juridiques et visant à les sensibiliser à l'impact de leurs décisions sur la vie des femmes pourraient constituer une stratégie à court terme pour les aider à faire des choix éclairés et holistiques.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.097
Threshold uncertainty score0.704

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0280.011
Scholarly communication0.0050.002
Open science0.0030.005
Research integrity0.0020.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.294
Teacher spread0.273 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations0
Published2023
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicCriminal Justice and Corrections Analysis→French-language works237,207→