MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4413835334 · doi:10.24908/iqurcp19007

Re-evaluating the Path to Rehabilitation Through Inclusion: Education at the Prison for Women, 1965- 2000

2025· article· en· W4413835334 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout

Bibliographic record

VenueInquiry Queen s Undergraduate Research Conference Proceedings · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicRace, History, and American Society
Canadian institutionsQueen's University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPrisonRehabilitationPath (computing)Inclusion (mineral)PsychologyGerontologyPhysical medicine and rehabilitationSociologyMedicineGender studiesCriminologyPhysical therapyComputer scienceComputer network

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

As a fourth-year History and Concurrent Education student and a Kingston Penitentiary tour guide, I was drawn to write a historical narrative about education at the former Prison for Women (P4W) after conversations with colleagues who were former correctional officers. While embarking on this research project, I recognized that an annotated research guide would be best considering the topic’s understudied nature and dispersed sources. This research guide serves as a resource for individuals studying the history of education at the P4W in Kingston, Ontario, from 1965 until its decommissioning in 2000. It divides education at the P4W into three categories: academic, vocational, and recreational. As the only federal institution for women in Canada during this period, the P4W operated within a correctional system primarily designed for male inmates. Consequently, educational programs for women were limited, often replicating those in male institutions without adaptations to accommodate the unique and complex needs of female offenders. Despite extensive research on male penal institutions in Canada, the role of education as a rehabilitative tool for incarcerated women remains understudied. This guide addresses that gap, focusing on a period marked by significant prison education reforms at the P4W and the broader prison system. It compiles diverse perspectives, centring the often marginalized voices of inmates who directly experienced these programs. This guide includes newsletters from the P4W and the Correctional Service of Canada (CSC), articles from Queen’s University’s Queen’s Journal, interviews with former P4W educators, government reports, and other primary and secondary sources. By juxtaposing the official narratives of CSC with the lived experiences of inmates, educators, and observations of visitors, this guide provides a more nuanced understanding of education at the P4W. The purpose of this guide is to support and inspire further research on the history of prison education for women in Canada.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.012
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesScience and technology studies
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.603
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0120.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.002
Science and technology studies0.0090.003
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.097
GPT teacher head0.460
Teacher spread0.363 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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 routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInquiry Queen s Undergraduate Research Conference ProceedingsSame topicRace, History, and American SocietyFrench-language works237,207