Pain During Incarceration: Searching for Safety in Hypermasculine Correctional Settings
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Hypermasculine prison culture produces hierarchies based on individuals' ability to assert dominance through strength and violence. Pain can impact physical strength, thereby limiting the ability to elevate or maintain social status within such hierarchies. AIM: The aim of the study was to explore the pain experiences of incarcerated men who were embedded into hypermasculine prison culture. METHODS: Interpretive description co-positioned with relational ethics informed the study design. Twelve males participated in 1-hour interviews, which were transcribed verbatim and analyzed inductively to identify themes. The data analysis occurred in three phases: sorting and organizing, making sense of patterns, and transforming patterns into findings. RESULTS: We found that correctional settings were characterized by a social culture of toxic hypermasculinity that influenced the pain experiences of people who were incarcerated. Individuals who experienced pain were more vulnerable to self-isolation in situations in which pain threatened their ability to defend themselves and their previously established social status within the prison hierarchy. Yet, those who felt secure in subordinate hierarchical positions and had effective peer relationships perceived greater safety in communal settings, which proved to be a distraction from pain. CONCLUSION: In the context of incarceration, positive peer relationships and perceptions of safety positively influenced individuals' experience of pain.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".