A preliminary investigation into the use of disciplinary segregation in federal penitentiaries
Bibliographic record
Abstract
An exploratory research design, (Longitudinal Case Study Design), was utilized to gather preliminary data and information regarding the use of Disciplinary Segregation (DS) in three medium security federal penitentiaries for males within the Prairie Region of the Correctional Service of Canada (CSC). As there is minimal research in this subject area, the study of this punitive sanction was undertaken to better understand who receives this sanction, why and how it is utilized by correctional officials, and its effect. Two major themes resulted from this exploratory research. Significant findings and generalized patterns of behavior indicated that the use of DS may not have the desired effect of positively deterring the negative institutional offending behavior of Aboriginal offenders as compared to the non-Aboriginal offenders in the sample population. Preliminary data indicates that the behavior of Aboriginal offenders may have worsened as a result of their having served a sanction of DS. The second major theme was that the issue of substance abuse related behavior was significantly tied to the use of DS as a punitive sanction. Further to this, data indicates that DS used as a punitive sanction for substance abuse related behavior did not have the desired effect on overall rates of institutional offending behavior. Similar to Aboriginal offenders, behavior patterns indicated that offenders who served a sanction of DS for behavior related to substance abuse appeared to have suffered a deterioration in behavior. As a result of the data generated by this research, it is felt that further research is required to determine the effectiveness of the use of DS as a punitive sanction, specifically in regards to Aboriginal offenders and offenders who receive DS for reasons related to substance abuse. (Abstract shortened by UMI.)
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 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".