Of boredom and havoc: Correctional officers and meaning making
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Despite early calls to pay attention to the role of emotions in crime and criminal justice, including in prison studies, empirical research focusing on emotions in the administration of criminal justice has been sporadic. With notable exceptions, little attention has been paid to the role of boredom, meaning, and the labour processes of criminal justice personnel more broadly, and correctional officers specifically. We fill the lacuna in knowledge by examining the relationship between boredom, temporality, the labour process of correctional officers, meaning making, and officer wellness. We first offer an overview of boredom as an emotion and its contribution to meaning making. We then outline the labour process of correctional officers, reviewing literature on the structure of their carceral work environments and their experiences of boredom. We draw on 651 interviews with correctional officer recruits (n = 375) and follow-up interviews with correctional officers (n = 276) within federal prisons across Canada to understand the emotional experiences of correctional work, specifically focusing on boredom as a dominant emotion and its effect on officer wellness. Our study uses a phenomenological approach to consider how boredom plays a role in the daily lives of those providing security within prison spaces, how prison officers make sense of their work in relation to temporality and boredom, and how boredom and havoc contributes to poor officer wellness.
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 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".