Peacebuilding: Quixote House and the reintegration into community of released offenders
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This research is an exploratory case study focused on Quixote House; an initiative developed by the non-profit sector to support offenders released into community after incarceration. The high rates of recidivism, characteristic of contemporary society, have sparked many scientific endeavours aimed at reducing what seems to be a failure of the current correctional and justice systems. Peace and Conflict Studies (PACS) approaches, such as Restorative Justice, find common ground with critical theorists of modernity when addressing the negative impact of interventions without regard for places and relationships. Today, Correctional Service Canada (CSC) officers and inmates across the country know about Quixote House. About 50 men from Stony Mountain Institution, the federal penitentiary in Manitoba, all of whom committed serious crimes, have lived in this house. This thesis explores the experiences and perceptions of 11 of those men with regards to their reintegration and the role this house played in their success. In addition, the experiences of the two founders of the house, six CSC staff, and my own experience, as a resident of the house for the last six years, are included. The central objectives of this qualitative study are to analyze those experiences empirically, to provide a framework for better understanding Quixote House, and to propose possible improvements, from the perspective provided by PACS, with respect to theory and practice of offender reintegration into community. The findings show: (1) the lingering effects of institutionalization and stigma, (2) the importance of safety based on trusting relationships and ‘home’ on the road to reintegration, (3) the significance of community in the ways released offenders begin to meet their needs after incarceration, (4) the crucial role of the non-profit sector and volunteers in providing a safety net and (5) the open possibility of new kinship in which a non-judgmental approach to offenders can be experienced. All of these findings point to the positive impact Quixote House has had on released offenders in its 10 years of existence.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.015 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".