NEW SOUTH WALES WOMEN INC. (INCARCERATED)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In western countries, until recently, women prisoners represented a small but sometimes highly challenging group of 'poor relations ' within correctional administrations. The smallness of the numbers involved in comparison with imprisoned men was often invoked to justify a restriction of programs and opportunities for them. Rather ironically, the picture is changing with a rapid increase in the number of detained women and the expanded prison capacity to accommodate them being partly rationalized on the basis that improved programs and "purpose-built accommodation " make imprisonment a desirable and beneficial option for many women. Neglect has never been a justifiable response to female criminality but specialized attention is not without its dangers. In company with many other jurisdictions, New South Wales has seen a dramatic increase in the number of women prisoners. Two decades ago there were 130 women in gaol; ten years ago that number had increased to 285. Today the number hovers around 480, of whom about a quarter are on remand. This total represents an increase of more than 260 % over the past two decades and 40 % in just eighteen months. The figures for Aboriginal women show an even greater growth. In 1982 there were four Aboriginal women in full time custody representing 3.9 % of the full time women inmates; in 1989 the number had risen to 32 (12.1%); in 1996,
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.180 | 0.109 |
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".