Organizational Cultures and Conditional Sentences: Balancing Rehabilitation and Control in Community Supervision
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article explores how organizational cultures shape the implementation of conditional sentences in community-based supervision agencies in Quebec. Conditional sentences, designed as an alternative to incarceration, embody a dual objective: punishment and rehabilitation. Through ethnographic research conducted in eight agencies, the study identifies three organizational styles along a continuum: care-oriented, monitoring-focused, and hybrid. These styles reflect varying priorities in balancing the punitive and rehabilitative aspects of conditional sentences. The findings reveal that agency culture is deeply influenced by spatial organization, intervention tools, and collaborative practices. For example, care-oriented agencies prioritize trust-building and community reintegration, while monitoring-focused agencies emphasize compliance and control. Hybrid agencies attempt to balance both goals, underscoring the complex tension inherent in conditional sentences. Additionally, local contexts – urban or rural – significantly shape the availability of resources and the dynamics of collaboration with external partners. This research underscores the importance of viewing agencies as social systems that mediate between broader judicial policies and individual practices. It highlights how localized organizational cultures influence the practical implementation of conditional sentences, offering insights for policymakers and practitioners. Emphasizing rehabilitation within these frameworks could transform conditional sentences into effective tools for community-supervised person reintegration, addressing both societal safety and rehabilitation goals.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".