MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4388704546 · doi:10.1177/00328855231208014

Correctional Officer Culture in Canada: Proving Oneself for In-Group Acceptance

2023· article· en· W4388704546 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 · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicCriminal Justice and Corrections Analysis
Canadian institutionsMemorial University of Newfoundland
Fundersnot available
KeywordsOfficerPrisonPsychologySocial psychologyWork ethicInterpersonal communicationWork (physics)Organizational cultureSociologyPublic relationsCriminologyLawPolitical scienceEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Correctional officers (COs) work in a unique climate of continual carceral care, balancing interpersonal relationships, prison dynamics, with organizational and occupational duties. Drawing on semi-structured interviews with COs ( n = 72) employed in federal penitentiaries in Canada, we explore factors influencing CO culture and peer acceptance. Using a constructed semi-grounded approach, we analyze how CO behaviors and values shape CO culture and illustrate how proving oneself is fundamental to in-group acceptance. Findings support the importance of proving oneself to CO acceptance, through developing trust, putting in time, performance, work ethic, showing respect, and by having each other's backs on the job.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.709
Threshold uncertainty score0.501

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.027
GPT teacher head0.308
Teacher spread0.281 · 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