MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4400621801 · doi:10.22374/cjmrp.v16i2.69

Prison Nurseries: A Review of Maternal and Infant Rooming in Outcomes for Incarcerated Mothers

2024· review· en· W4400621801 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Amanda Dowling, Colleen Fulton

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Midwifery Research and Practice · 2024
Typereview
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicCriminal Justice and Corrections Analysis
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPrisonPsychologyDevelopmental psychologyCriminology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Women are the fastest growing prison population in Canada, and at incarceration, 4-10 percent of women are pregnant. These women, their correctional facilities, and Canadian health care services are increasingly forced to address the issues of motherhood and reproductive health care during incarceration. Most incarcerated women are separated from their infants soon after birth. The authors claim that prison nurseries, as a harm reduction strategy, are a positive alternative to this separation. Midwives could play a valuable role in these health care units. Methods: This paper is a literature review examining the outcomes of mother-infant dyads who have access to prison nurseries. The search strategy included 15 health research databases, applying similar search terms to all databases. This article has been peer reviewed.

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 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)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.010
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.942
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.010
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.198
GPT teacher head0.518
Teacher spread0.320 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designOther design
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations5
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Midwifery Research and PracticeSame topicCriminal Justice and Corrections AnalysisFrench-language works237,207