Self-harm during imprisonment in the context of penitentiary andragogy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Self-harm during imprisonment in the context of penitentiary andragogy The diploma thesis deals with the issue of self-harming behavior and alexithymia among individuals aged 18-26 who are serving a prison sentence. The theoretical framework reflects current knowledge from the field of penitentiary practice, with emphasis placed on the specifics of self-injurious behavior in this environment-its possible causes, manifestations, and preventive approaches from the perspective of penitentiary andragogy. The empirical part of the thesis presents and discusses the results of a quantitatively oriented research study conducted using standardized research tools: the Functional Assessment of Self-Mutilation (FASM) by Nijenhuis et al. (1996) and the Toronto Alexithymia Scale (TAS-20) by Bagby et al. (1993). Using these tools, the study examines the relationship between self-harming behavior and the phenomenon of alexithymia in a selected group of respondents. The research was conducted on a sample of 312 participants, with an average age of 23 years. Among them, 238 were men (76%) and 74 were women (24%). The diploma thesis was developed as part of broader research activities carried out at Jan Evangelista Purkyně University in Ústí nad Labem, Charles University in Prague, and Palacký University in Olomouc....
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 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".