Who cares?: The burdens of care borne by the loved ones of incarcerated men
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The labor and associated challenges of providing informal care have been characterized as constituting a burden of care (BoC). Despite the analytical value this concept has demonstrated in studies of nursing, psychiatry, and health administration, researchers have overlooked this phenomenon in the context of incarceration. Using 181 longitudinal interviews conducted between April 2020 and January 2021 with 29 loved ones of men incarcerated across Canada, we examine the experiences of caregivers trying to meet the outstanding needs of incarcerated people. We find that the BoC arose when caregivers compensated for the correctional system's (real or perceived) failed responsibility to fulfill the basic needs of incarcerated people relating to rehabilitation and release planning, as well as their legal advocacy requirements. We position the BoC as a component of secondary prisonization and use the framework to accentuate the roles caregivers played in reducing the care deficit incarcerated people experienced and, by extension, augmenting the functionality of the prison system. We suggest ways to promote less onerous carceral and reintegrative terms by reducing the unmet needs of incarcerated people and, by extension, the BoC that caregivers bore.
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 | 0.002 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".