Bibliographic record
Abstract
RESUMÉ Ce texte trace les origines de l'usage de la photographie dans les pénitenciers fédéraux au Canada.En se servant principalement de la correspondance tirée du fonds du ministère de la Justice, conservé à Bibliothèque et Archives Canada, et en utilisant des exemples tirés des registres des détenus du pénitencier de Kingston (« Kingston Penitentiary Inmate History Description Ledgers »), l'expérience et la réaction sociale canadiennes sont comparées aux expériences contemporaines des États-Unis, de l'Angleterre et de la France.L 'auteure examine aussi le rôle qu'a pu jouer la législation fédérale sur les pratiques policières au niveau municipal.ABSTRACT This article documents the origins of the use of photography within federal penitentiaries in Canada.Drawing primarily on correspondence from the Department of Justice records at Library and Archives Canada, and using examples from the Kingston Penitentiary Inmate History Description Ledgers, the Canadian experience and social response is compared with contemporary developments in the United States, England, and France.Whether federal legislation may have af fected police practices at the municipal level is also discussed.Not ten years had passed since the Daguerreotype technique was publicly announced in 1839, when law of ficials in both England and France were actively taking and collecting photographs of prisoners.In fact, photographing prisoners became one of the biggest uses for the new technology .In 1841, the Paris police began to include daguerreotype portraits on file with their reports on individual criminals 1 and Bristol Gaol staf f in England claimed they had "reduced the [recorded] number of criminals from 160 to 100" when they adopted the practice of photographing their inmates in 1848. 2 In 1871, the United Kingdom passed the Prevention of Crimes Act, which required all prisons to adopt photography as a way to document their prisoners.3 The use 1 Jennifer Green, Framing the Victorians (Ithaca, 1996), p. 200.
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 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.014 | 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".