“Even our hardest prisoners are being given free yoga lessons so they can find inner peace”: Newspaper framing of prison yoga programs from 1981 to 2022
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Yoga programs are a growing part of daily life in prisons around the globe. Yet, scholars have not deeply considered the extent to which mass media report upon, or the ways in which they frame, these interventions. We address this absence through an analysis of English-language newspaper written reportage on prison yoga from 1981 until 2022, comprising a total of 1448 unique articles originating from 31 countries. After a brief analysis of geographic and temporal characteristics of reportage, we analyze three key themes that emerged from a qualitative analysis of the articles: (1) the normalization for a popular audience of yoga as part of prisoners’ daily life; (2) the framing of yoga as a rehabilitative tool; and (3) sensationalized reportage, which either presents yoga as a luxury for undeserving criminals or focuses on “notorious” prisoners. Our study not only shows increasing media interest in prison yoga in a diverse range of countries, but also highlights how a seemingly innocuous aspect of prison life can become politicized in competing media frames. We argue, therefore, that newspapers’ framing of yoga ultimately speaks to debates about the purpose and form of punishment, rather than about the activity of yoga itself; and that, through the reliance on these relatively narrow and simplistic frames, the complexity of prison yoga’s meanings can be obscured.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".