Constructing Innocence: Representations of Sexual Violence in Upper Canada’s War of 1812
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This essay explores the way in which rape was represented in Upper Canada circa 1812. It draws upon a broadly defined Upper Canadian print culture that drew upon and reacted against wider trends, especially those prevalent in the United States. Whereas American newspapers spoke openly of sexual violence against American women during the War of 1812, Upper Canadian sources tended to suppress any such discussion, for reasons that reflect profound cultural and political differences. Americans stoked a rowdy, popular patriotism that Canadians distrusted and sought to avert. The analysis of national differences is contextualized within broader changes in the ways that rape was constructed in the press and the courts over the first half of the nineteenth century, in ways that worked to muffle women’s public voice. But the War of 1812’s most famous heroine, Laura Secord, was not silenced. Writing almost half a century later, Secord challenged discursive conventions of gender when she had her say and made herself a hero. The final section examines how Secord and her early commentators interwove literary signals of danger and respectability in their published accounts.
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 | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.056 | 0.034 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.015 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".