‘Who better to be training them?!’: Renewed Moments of Liberal Carceral Expansion and the Role of Higher Education
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Higher education is consistently offered as a powerful tool of criminal justice reform. Often presumed to be progressive, it is imperative to interrogate the limits of these orientations. I draw from 41 (n = 41) semi-structured interviews with staff and faculty at 36 criminology departments across Canada to uncover how they understand the role of criminological undergraduate education within ongoing projects of CJS reform. Participants emphasize that change happens from within the system: filling the ranks with good apples who are armed with critical social science knowledges. I interrogate this approach to institutional change, focusing on the expansionist formations that carceral liberalism necessitates. I illustrate the limits of this current criminological imagination and offer opportunities for other possibilities grounded in a transformative framework.
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 | 0.013 | 0.022 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.032 | 0.064 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.015 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.010 |
| 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".