Nov-2000 Seeking Transformative Justice for Women: Views
Bibliographic record
Abstract
penitentiary as an alternative to the death penalty. In their vision, lawbreakers would be confined within a peaceful place where in isolation they would do penance, and become penitent, hence a penitentiary. By the early 19th century, having seen the results of their experiment, Quakers and many others were decrying the stultifying effects of incarceration on the human spirit, for both the guards and the guarded, and the power abuses that are structurally inherent to imprisonment (PREAP, 1976). Two hundred years later, internationally, the Quakers are still prominent among the "faith communities, " and the human rights activists, politicians and career professionals of every ilk, including criminal justice, who envision more practical, community-based modes of responding to unlawful behavior while addressing the reasons for it. With reference to women’s imprisonment in the Canadian content, this article discusses alternatives to retributive punishment, as posed by academics, human rights activists, officials and former prisoners. As an activist academic who consults with prisoners and former prisoners, I speak from engagement with as well as critical perspectives on this movement toward community-based justice.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.014 | 0.013 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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".