Continuing the conversation: practical strategies to enable acceptable and feasible health research in prisons
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Within the unique structural, procedural, and social contexts of prisons, there are substantial challenges to conducting health research. Sharing approaches that facilitate study planning and implementation could support future research and foster critical discussion regarding best practices. During a qualitative study, we developed strategies to navigate the challenges of conducting research with participants who were currently incarcerated in prisons across Canada, including in participant recruitment, participation, and benefits. We found that creativity, flexibility, and responsiveness were key to surmounting barriers, mitigating risks, and optimizing study value. Our findings can be of value to other people conducting health research in prisons.
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 | 0.192 | 0.212 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.052 | 0.034 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.022 | 0.036 |
| Open science | 0.007 | 0.049 |
| Research integrity | 0.023 | 0.032 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.018 | 0.007 |
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; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.
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".