Understanding prison living: Mitigating the problem of ‘incompatible’ incarcerated people through the perspectives of correctional officers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Prisoner incompatibility is a challenge for correctional officers (COs), as incompatible people in prison are more likely to engage in negative interactions, participate in altercations, cause harm to each other and create tension on a unit. Through in‐depth semi‐structured interviews with 28 COs employed in Atlantic Canada, we explore how incompatibility among incarcerated people shapes how incarcerated people are managed and perceived by COs. Engaging the prison design literature, we further examine the kinds of spatial designs and protocols that contribute to, or mitigate, incompatibility. We find that COs describe a complex prison hierarchy that, while being laced with challenges beyond the control of COs, could nevertheless be effectively mitigated through architectural transformation or policy reforms. We highlight the need to consider how prison culture informs and is interpolated through spatial configurations of correctional institutions and how these social and spatial dynamics shape interactions between prisoners.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.009 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.026 | 0.026 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.010 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".