Policy recommendations to enhance the safe and secure management of federally incarcerated transgender inmates
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Transgender inmates placed in correctional institutions that correspond to their existing biology are vulnerable to sexual harassment or assault by staff and inmates alike. Further, there is a distinct lack of empirical research regarding ‘best practices’ for managing transgender inmates within correctional authorities in Canada and the United States. The recent approval of Bill C-16 (2016), An Act to amend the Canadian Human Rights Act and the Criminal Code added gender identity and gender expression to the list of prohibited grounds of discrimination in Canada. The approval of Bill C-16 (2016) has forced the Correctional Service of Canada (CSC) to revise several policies for transgender inmates; however, producing forced policies may not fully address the individual needs and overall safety considerations of transgender inmates. This paper provides an analysis on the institutional management and treatment of transgender inmates in North American institutions and suggests recommendations to the CSC to further enhance the safety and security for housing transgender inmates.
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 | 0.024 | 0.078 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.016 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.014 | 0.013 |
| Open science | 0.008 | 0.011 |
| Research integrity | 0.033 | 0.019 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.051 | 0.009 |
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".