The Incompatibilities of Care and Corrections: A Critical Analysis of Mental Health and Administrative Segregation in Ontario Correctional Facilities and Beyond
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Taking as a starting point the case of Christina Jahn, a woman with serious mental and physical health issues who was held in administrative segregation for 210 days at the Ottawa-Carleton Detention Centre between May of 2011 and February of 2012, this thesis explores the use of segregation as the privileged management tool for mentally ill people in Canadian correctional institutions. Through a thematic analysis of documents from the Jahn case and from the cases of Ashley Smith, Adam Capay, Cas Geddes, Francis v. Ontario, and Bill C-83, I engage with intersectional and abolitionist theoretical frameworks to demonstrate that there has been a persisting reliance on administrative segregation as a mental health management tool for incarcerated mentally ill people, despite numerous legal, political, and human rights-based pushes for change. Ultimately, I argue that the unchanged reliance on administrative segregation illustrates there are fundamental incompatibilities between care and corrections.
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 | 0.011 | 0.027 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.075 | 0.079 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.018 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.012 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".