“Feed them, protect them, give them what they want”: exploring food as an occupational stress in Canadian federal penitentiaries
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In prior punishment studies, researchers examining food in prisons focused on incarcerated people’s experiences with food insecurity, food nutrition, and access to food, some even connecting food to deprivations as per the “pains of imprisonment” . Others have studied the evolving expectations that correctional officers (CO) care and deliver care to incarcerated people who rely on COs to meet their basic needs (food, clothing, shelter). We, in this article, analyzed interviews with federal COs (n = 101) to reveal how food can become a source of stress for COs in ways remarkably similar but starkly different than how food can stress a prisoner. Departing with the knowledge that COs are responsible for the reproval and supervision of food for incarcerated people within the penitentiary food system. The food system, in turn, affects COs’ abilities to access, produce, and consume their own food while overseeing food delivery, supervision, and reproval among imprisoned people. Policy considerations and recommendations are suggested.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".