‘It’s like you’re still in jail’: exploring the subjugation of emotional knowledge in prison-to-community reintegration in Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Reintegration means being released from prison and returning to the community; however, the process is much more complex than this simplistic definition implies. In addition to acquiring the resources necessary for everyday survival, the reintegration process incites intense emotions for formerly incarcerated people. This paper examines the ways in which released people’s emotions are subjugated via the community reintegration process, arguing that emotions are a form of subjugated knowledge in correctional environments, and that their subjugation obfuscates the precarity criminalised people experience upon community re-entry. We begin by conceptualising how risk logic subjugates emotional knowledge in the reintegration process. After outlining the methodology, we present our findings, which demonstrate how the place, time, and relationship restrictions formerly incarcerated people are subject to upon release create emotional and material barriers to successful reintegration. The anxieties and frustrations that formerly incarcerated people share about their reintegration experiences signal how their emotions were conditioned by these restrictions and how correctional interpretations of risk problematically subjugate this emotional knowledge. We maintain that analysing the subjugation of emotions during the reintegration process is necessary to foster both successful re-entry and emotional wellbeing for formerly incarcerated people.
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 | 0.004 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.023 | 0.019 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| 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".