It’s Time for a Change: A Proposal to Abolish Solitary Confinement From Canadian Prisons
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Despite Canada’s reputation for being a leader in human rights, its treatment of prisoners requires a closer examination. In particular, prisoner and human rights advocates have widely criticized the use of solitary confinement in Canadian federal and provincial prisons as a form of torture. Solitary confinement imposes excruciating and demeaning conditions on prisoners, jeopardizing their mental and physical welfare. Following court decisions deeming solitary confinement unconstitutional, the federal government replaced the formal use of solitary confinement with structured intervention units. However, these units continue to be a reformulated version of the original practice, sustaining the torturous conditions subjected to inmates. Implications of current practices include a negative impact on inmates' general well-being and a violation of prisoners’ rights under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and international law via the Nelson Mandela Rules. This policy proposal calls for the end of solitary confinement and structured intervention units in all Canadian prisons. While there are some challenges to doing so, benefits to ending the practice include reduced correctional costs, enhanced safety for the general prison population, and increased reintegration success.
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 | 0.012 | 0.028 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.035 | 0.018 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.022 | 0.015 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".