Correctional officers and drug smuggling: Boundary work, horizontal surveillance, and cultural responses to drug entry
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Drug entry into prisons represents a serious issue for both incarcerated people and prison staff. Although substances enter prisons in many ways, staff drug smuggling represents a consistent problem facing correctional institutions globally. We draw on 131 interviews with correctional officers (COs) working in four Western Canadian prisons to analyze how COs understand and respond to drug smuggling. Participants drew on specific cultural narratives to portray coworkers who smuggled drugs, suggesting that CO occupational subcultures played a meaningful role in shaping how they perceived drugs, drug smuggling, and “dirty” correctional staff. Officers further detailed cultural narratives and frames they employed to detect and prevent drug trafficking among their peers. These included the informal social controls of boundary work and horizontal surveillance, which we analyze using Douglas’ concepts of purity and impurity. Participants justified such practices as efforts to reduce drug smuggling but also described how boundary work and horizontal surveillance stratified the CO population in distinctive ways. We conclude by discussing how CO cultures should influence our perceptions of staff drug smuggling.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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".