An examination of the ethical implications for segregation units in Canadian federal prisons
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In January 2018, the B.C Supreme Court ruled the use of administrative segregation in Federal Corrections for long-term or indefinite durations as unconstitutional. While administrative segregation is used as an offender management strategy by the Correctional Service of Canada (CSC) to maintain a safe and secure environment, the conditions of confinement may pose a risk of psychological harm for the isolated inmate occupant. Under the ethical guidance of a deontological framework, the risk of psychological harm outweighed the institutional impact of administrative segregation. While psychological harm is an important consideration, it may be more effective to evaluate the use of administrative segregation under the framework of therapeutic jurisprudence. After examining the practice of administrative segregation within Canada and abroad, a summary of the recent court ruling is provided, as well as a review of the literature regarding the factors associated with administrative segregation. Finally, the application of therapeutic jurisprudence to the use of administrative segregation is explored and recommendations are provided.
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 | 0.008 | 0.027 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.058 | 0.015 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".