To Prison, With Mom: International Due Process Issues for Children and Mothers Posed by Prison Nurseries
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Some jurisdictions automatically permit infants born in custody to stay with their mothers, while others enforce immediate separation. Both practices contradict the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child’s best interests standard and violate general notions of due process. By comparing automatic actions in Mexico, India, and Canada with the United Kingdom’s multi-agency admissions boards and Australia’s Living with Mum Program, this Article demonstrates how transparent, case-by-case decision-making upholds the human rights of both mother and child. We recommend that each case be thoroughly assessed by an interdisciplinary team to ensure the child’s voice is heard and their best interests are prioritized. Decision-makers must weigh the risks and benefits of placing a child in prison with a parent, considering factors such as the child’s age, maturity, and the conditions of both the prison and alternative placements. The decision-making process should be transparent, with written findings and an opportunity for judicial review. Meanwhile, governments must systematically collect data and support longitudinal research to ensure policies truly prioritize the human rights of both mother and child.
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 | 0.047 | 0.095 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.019 | 0.016 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.009 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".