MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W7132905841

Care, Coloniality, and Indigeneity in Saskatchewan’s Carceral-Corrections Industry

2025· dissertation· W7132905841 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Laura Beach

Bibliographic record

VenueTSpace · 2025
Typedissertation
Language
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicCriminal Justice and Corrections Analysis
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIndigenousAgency (philosophy)Context (archaeology)Participant observationMeaning (existential)PoliticsAssemblage (archaeology)
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This dissertation examines the way people care for one another within the context of incarceration, specifically in Saskatchewan, where the overwhelming majority of prisoners in provincial correctional facilities are Indigenous and staff are predominantly white, and where there is an assemblage of carceral-correctional institutions – a carceral-corrections industry – that has historically operated to facilitate settler-colonial expansion through sequestering Indigenous people and subjecting them to techniques and technologies geared toward reformation (aka “correction”). Drawing on twenty-two months of fieldwork, including participant observation in public forums, court rooms, and academic/industry conferences, archival research, and interviews with formerly incarcerated people and correctional staff, this dissertation attends to relations of care between and among those caught up in the carceral- corrections industry, either via conflict with the criminal justice system or through employment within it – what I term here “carceral care”. In so doing, it moves beyond monolithic representations of the settler state, focusing on the people who animate and mediate it, the roles they assume, the discourses they employ, their day-to-day practices, and the meaning they make of all this. This unsettles structural analyses of Indigenous over-incarceration and highlights thepersistence of both coloniality and Indigeneity, locating the agency of Indigenous political and social actors – including prisoners – within an industry geared toward undermining Indigenous sovereignty, self-determination, and wellbeing (both collective and individual). The reality of caring relations within institutions of confinement – which are animated equally by the impetus to cage and punish (carceral) and the commitment to rehabilitate (corrections) – is not a straightforward story of oppression and resistance, of staff versus prisoners, of settler versus Indigenous peoples. This dissertation is my attempt to honour and account for the varied, complex, and emergent forms of carceral care – to document instances of care-as-violence, acts and relations that save, support, and sustain, and all that lies between. Caring relations between and among prisoners and staff are simultaneously marked by paternalism, maternalism, racism, loathing, dehumanization, and fear of contagion as well as empathy, humour, respect, and reciprocity. They evidence lines of fracture, failure, multiplicity, ambivalence, and, crucially, illuminate possibilities of life beyond settler-coloniality.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.095
Threshold uncertainty score0.303

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.003
Science and technology studies0.0230.015
Scholarly communication0.0060.002
Open science0.0020.010
Research integrity0.0010.003
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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.390
Teacher spread0.367 · 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 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 routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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