Empire, Internationalism, and the Campaign against the Traffic in Women and Children in the 1920s
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article assesses the inter-war campaign against trafficking in women and children, with a particular focus on the leading role played by British and British-dominated voluntary associations. This humanitarian campaign was conducted by social relief organizations such as the Association for Moral and Social Hygiene (AMSH) and the International Bureau for the Suppression of the Traffic in Women and Children (IBSTWC). While organized opposition to trafficking in persons was not new, these groups consciously 'internationalized' their advocacy and lobbying efforts in the 1920s and 1930s. Although their work against trafficking in the Straits Settlements, or the prostitution rings operating in the Mediterranean, was driven in part by the desire to protect Britain's national prestige, their moral impetus and their cooperation with non-British bodies reflected wider international concerns. The article also explores the use of public diplomacy as a new political tool, with a particular focus on the public-private cooperation evident in the League of Nations' work to combat the trade. Finally, the article advances some conclusions as to why British women's political organizations in particular were some of the earliest 'internationalists', how successful internationalists were in combating transnational social problems, and to what extent inter-war internationalists established a precedent for the subsequent growth of international social relief organizations.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.019 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".