“Care” and Carcerality in a Colonial State: A Critical Exploration of Secure Residential Youth Care in Ontario
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Secure residential youth care has been employed as a mechanism of both protection and control for young people deemed vulnerable or “at-risk.” There is little academic literature in the Canadian context on this topic; this study will provide an overview of the historical and current landscape of secure residential youth care in Ontario including the identification of populations that are uniquely impacted by state-sanctioned confinement as a mechanism of “care.” I explore this topic through a critical discourse analysis that makes visible the ideological and political underpinnings responsible for the development of the legislative framework that enables secure care. I employ Critical Race Theory, Anti-Carceral/Abolitionist Feminism, and intersectionality as theoretical foundations and lenses through which I analyze the data which reveal the disparate experiences of Black, Indigenous, and queer youth in secure care. The results of this research will provide important implications for practice and considerations for further research. I propose that care models, extricated from carceral logics that contribute to the criminalization of youth, are possible and must be built upon the provision of robust, youth-informed, and dignity-centred supports.
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 | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.047 | 0.030 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".