MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W7106846798 · doi:10.14288/cjur.v7i3.196791

Exploring Canadian News Media’s Portrayal of Federal Penitentiaries and Prisoners During COVID-19

2022· article· en· W7106846798 on OpenAlexaffabout

Bibliographic record

VenueOpen Collections · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicCriminal Justice and Corrections Analysis
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsImprisonmentNewspaperNews mediaPrisonContent analysisHuman rights

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The media have often portrayed prisons and prisoners in a distorted manner. Prisoners are often portrayed as more dangerous and violent than they typically are, and prisons as necessary institutions that function effectively. Using a qualitative content analysis of 84 newspaper articles published online by Canadian news outlets, this study explores how the news media portrayed Correctional Service Canada (CSC) federal penitentiaries and prisoners detained in these institutions during the first 11-months of the COVID-19 pandemic. The results reveal that the media portrayed prisoners as human beings that are entitled to exercise their rights until they were prioritized for vaccinations, at which point there was a shift towards their portrayal as an undeserving dangerous underclass. CSC was portrayed as having failed to address and protect prisoners’ needs and rights during the pandemic. The media ultimately portrayed federal imprisonment as a system that is broken and incarceration as an ineffective response to criminal behaviour. The implications of these findings – including the need for a “radical rethink” of federal imprisonment – and suggestions for future research are discussed.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.015
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.050
Threshold uncertainty score0.363

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.015
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0080.011
Science and technology studies0.0140.007
Scholarly communication0.0080.003
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.101
GPT teacher head0.319
Teacher spread0.218 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2022
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOpen Collections→Same topicCriminal Justice and Corrections Analysis→French-language works237,207→