“Impossible Cases Can be Cured When All the Factors Are Known”: Gender, Psychiatry and Toronto’s Juvenile Court, 1912–1930
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Mental health professionals intent on leaving their mark on juvenile justice and committed to behaviour modification forged a partnership with Toronto's Juvenile Court during the 1920s. However, the routine practice of the court did not allow for intensive investigation of juvenile offenders or for careful study of the causes of delinquency. Conferences started in 1925 by W. E. Blatz bridged this gap by offering a number of advantages that could not be realized under the court's busy routine. Taking charge of a limited number of offenders permitted psychiatrists to more thoroughly examine special cases such as recidivists, intensely debate treatment strategies, more carefully supervise individual cases, and test their theories about the causes of juvenile crime. Conference case files reveal that psychiatrically informed strategies of regulation were a novel way to respond to deviance and that gender-specific understandings of, and strategies for, appropriate conduct also served to reproduce prevailing ideals for working-class boys and girls. With clear ideas about appropriate conduct for girls and boys, mental health professional attempted to create such standards in the delinquents whose cases appeared before them.
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 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.032 | 0.023 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 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".