Victims or offenders: who were the 11 Indigenous female prisoners who died in custody and were investigated by the Australian Royal Commission into Aboriginal Deaths in Custody?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
There were 11 Indigenous females who died in custody and whose deaths were investigated by the Australian Royal Commission into Aboriginal Deaths in Custody (RCIADIC). The RCIADIC is one of the most comprehensive inquiries conducted about Indigenous Australians, and it is often cited to support the introduction of Australian Indigenous justice policy reforms. This article describes the lives (as both victims and offenders) of the 11 females whose deaths were investigated by the RCIADIC. The inquiry was initially established to examine whether the state’s practices in prisons and watch-houses contributed to the 99 deaths that were investigated. This article documents how the deceased females arguably became invisible as both victims and offenders in favour of the Indigenous males who had died in custody, despite the fact that the inquiry attempted to include a racialized perspective. The article concludes by comparing the recommendations of the Manitoba Aboriginal Justice Inquiry - a Canadian inquiry that took place around the same time as the RCIADIC, and which, at the time, was able to adequately consider the difficulties facing Canadian Aboriginal women when confronted by the Manitoba justice system. This intersectional race and gender analysis illustrates that without proper consideration the needs of racialized women will remain unmet when having to contend with criminal justice and legal processes.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".