MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1992339314 · doi:10.1353/jwl.2006.0002

"Pleasing Appearance. . . Only Adds to the Danger": The 1930 Insanity Hearing of Violet Hypatia Bowyer

2005· article· fr· W1992339314 on OpenAlexaffabout
Constance Backhouse

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Women and the Law/Revue Femmes et Droit · 2005
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldPsychology
TopicHistorical Psychiatry and Medical Practices
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPrisonTribunalCourageInsanityHumanitiesLawArtPolitical scienceEthnologySociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The state's legal authority to detain individuals within insane asylums in early twentieth-century Canada was deeply influenced by factors of gender, class, and race. Violet Hypatia Bowyer, a working-class, white woman who was just twenty-two years old in 1928, was initially incarcerated in Ontario for leading a "dissolute" life. Wrongly diagnosed as "insane" by prison officials, she tried valiantly, but failed, to secure her release through legal challenge. The expert testimony of the prison officials, the psychiatric "experts," and the decision of the court all testify to the terrifying coerciveness of law in Canadian history. siècle au Canada, le pouvoir légal permettant à l'État de détenir des personnes dans des asiles d'aliéné-es était profondément influencé par les facteurs du genre, de la classe et de la race. Violet Hypatia Bowyer, une femme blanche de classe ouvrière, n'avait que vingt-deux ans en 1928, au moment où elle a été incarcérée pour la première fois en Ontario parce qu'elle vivait une vie « de débauche ». Les autorités carcérales l'ayant faussement diagnostiquée comme « aliénée », elle a tenté avec courage, bien que sans succès, d'obtenir sa liberté par la contestation judiciaire. Le témoignage expert des autorités carcérales, des psychiatres et la décision du tribunal révèlent la coercition terrifiante du droit dans l'histoire du Canada.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.917
Threshold uncertainty score0.987

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.036
GPT teacher head0.298
Teacher spread0.262 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
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

Citations2
Published2005
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Women and the Law/Revue Femmes et DroitSame topicHistorical Psychiatry and Medical PracticesFrench-language works237,207