Bibliographic record
Abstract
The policewoman movement in England, Canada, and the United States begun in the 19th century with the prison reform movement. Just as separate prisons for women would protect them from the sexual danger of incarceration so would police matrons save the detained woman from the threat posed by male criminals and station officials. The next step in the evolution of the movement in the 1910s propelled women onto the streets as safety workers, patrol women, and policewomen, ostensibly to protect young women from lecherous males and to prevent the moral downfall of working-class women. The first generation of policewomen were a combination of social workers and cops, their duties being to chaperon the city's young women at dance halls, in parks and on urban streets. In 1918, Montreal hired its first policewomen to investigate women criminals. Using the files of one of the protective officers (Elizabeth Wand), Myers analyses the impact of this new disciplinary force. As a pioneer policewoman, whose job it was to patrol women and keep them safe from sexual danger and immorality, Wand expanded the meanings of crime, policing, and discipline. For this she encountered resistance from male officers and judges and from the policed women as well.
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) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.057 | 0.016 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 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".