MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7118169836 · doi:10.1177/26326663251370026

Prison visitation, non-visitation, and the carceral production of poor judgement in Northeast Brazil

2025· article· en· W7118169836 on OpenAlexafffund
Hollis Moore

Bibliographic record

VenueIncarceration · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicCriminal Justice and Corrections Analysis
Canadian institutionsCarleton University
FundersSocial Sciences and Humanities Research Council of CanadaWenner-Gren Foundation
KeywordsPrisonJudgementEthnographyPunishment (psychology)NarrativePoliticsState (computer science)Everyday life

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

As Brazilians navigate the ethical complexities of a family member's incarceration, they generally strive to do what is “good” and “right” according to ethical criteria that emerge from everyday life. Yet, under carceral pressure, their carefully considered words and deeds often come to be evaluated as breaches. The narrative of one Afro-Brazilian woman's fraught transition, from prison visitor to prisoner without visitors, illustrates how state-organized punishment can cause people to exhibit poor judgement in the eyes of those who matter most. Drawing on findings from ethnographic fieldwork conducted in/around prisons in Bahia, Brazil, this article approaches prison visitation and nonvisitation through the anthropological lens of “ordinary ethics” to explore how incarceration disrupts life for targeted groups by shaping without determining ethical judgment. Ultimately, the carceral production of group-differentiated susceptibility to ethical breach constitutes an injurious effect of classed, gendered, and racialized state violence, illustrating the political unevenness of ethical experience.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.510
Threshold uncertainty score0.993

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.310
Teacher spread0.303 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
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
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIncarcerationSame topicCriminal Justice and Corrections AnalysisFrench-language works237,207