MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4410252523 · doi:10.15353/cfs-rcea.v12i1.704

Punishment and waste

2025· article· en· W4410252523 on OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff
Else Marie Knudsen

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Food Studies / La Revue canadienne des études sur l alimentation · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicGlobal Peace and Security Dynamics
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPunishment (psychology)BusinessEnvironmental scienceWaste managementPsychologyEngineeringSocial psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

While families of prisoners in Canada are often allowed to visit their loved one inside, they can face significant challenges in accessing and navigating the conditions of these visits. One such challenge is the food available to them as they seek to take part in a key aspect of family life and relationship, the family meal. Families’ experiences of the limited options, poor quality, and high costs of food echo those of the prisoners living in the institution. The prized Private Family Visit (PFV), during which family members spend a weekend with a prisoner in a small house on the grounds of a CSC institutions, do present a rare opportunity for a true family meal. However, institutional policies render the costs and waste of the food so high that partners in this study (primarily women living in poverty) experience this as yet another ‘painful’ penal power. While these policies are minor in scope, impact, and importance to all but a few hundred Canadian families a year, I argue that families’ experiences of carceral food systems contribute insights into the way food is used as a tool of penal power and as one of the mechanism through which families of prisoners become carceral subjects.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.748
Threshold uncertainty score0.507

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0310.037
Scholarly communication0.0080.003
Open science0.0020.009
Research integrity0.0020.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0100.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.030
GPT teacher head0.283
Teacher spread0.253 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Food Studies / La Revue canadienne des études sur l alimentationSame topicGlobal Peace and Security DynamicsFrench-language works237,207