Supporting humane corrections through the provision of books, libraries and reading
Bibliographic record
Abstract
One powerful tool available to correctional facilities to affirm and protect the humanity of the people in their care are facility libraries and the books, reading and learning opportunities enabled through those libraries. Rule 64 of the ‘Nelson Mandela Rules’ states that every person deprived of liberty in our correctional institutions must have access to a well-stocked library and be encouraged to use it. This recognises the value of books, libraries and reading to people deprived of liberty. In this presentation, the results of several research projects, each designed to explore and understand the role of books, libraries and reading in the lives of people deprived of liberty will be presented. The capacity for books, libraries and reading to support the humanity and dignity of persons deprived of liberty will be demonstrated across five domains: imagining a different future, maintaining and building connection with family and others, taking responsibility for the self, reducing institutionalisation, and keeping a foot in the outside world. Although the provision of books, libraries and reading is mandated through the Mandela Rules, the practical requirements to do so are often challenging for correctional facilities. Examples of innovative practices, particularly in the Asia-Pacific region will be described to inform and inspire attendees. The presentation concludes with an introduction to the recently published International Library and Information Associations and Institutions Guidelines for Library Services to Prisoners, co-edited by the presenter, and written to support correctional institutions in their provision of library services to the people in their care.
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 | 0.003 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.014 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.010 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.035 | 0.009 |
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".