Parole boards in South Africa: on the road to extinction? A comparative perspective
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article attempts to make a comparison of the parole boards of South Africa, United Kingdom and Canada. The benchmark for this comparison includes foundations; structures; form of enquiry; and criteria used by the parole boards to select offenders. Parole boards in South Africa have been established in terms of the Correctional Services Act, which also provides for the selection of members of the parole boards. With regard to rights, opinions have been expressed, among others from parole boards members themselves, that parole is a privilege and not a right. In general, parole boards were primarily created as the authority to oversee the new arrangements of parole as conditional release of offenders under supervision. Parole boards in the form of prison administrators played a major role in the creation of modalities of parole. In South Africa, the possible participation of courts in matters of release on parole has been mooted in the defunct Parole and Correctional Supervision Amendment Act. The involvement of the political bureaucrats in parole matters has resulted in the parole boards losing the link between the rationale for release on parole and criteria used to select suitable offenders.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 teacher head, 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".