Book Review: Punishment in Disguise: Penal Governance and Federal Imprisonment of Women in Canada, by Kelly Hannah-Moffat
Bibliographic record
Abstract
For years, I wore a button with the slogan "I dreamed I visited the Prison for Women and nobody was home."When the Prison for Women was closed, I stopped wearing that button.And yet there was no triumphal political event which meant that I could throw it away.Women's prisons continue to exist.Punishment in Disguise, Kelly Hannah-Moffat's analysis of women's penality from the early 1800s to the present, offers a sobering examination of the state of women's imprisonment and why the dream evoked by that button must be kept alive.Recently, there was a review of Peter Oliver's contribution to Canadian penal historiography in this Journal.It lamented the lack of "analytically ambitious projects" that focus less on prisonsperse and more on penality, or the complex of knowledges, techniques, forms, and strategies that frame the broader context of carceral institutions.,Hannah-Moffat's Punishment in Disguise is an answer to that challenge.Hannah-Moffat presents her work as "a genealogy of some current forms of penal governance." 3 In this endeavour, history plays a critical role.An important part of Hannah-Moffat's book is devoted to disrupting whiggish views of women's imprisonment, by showing how different regimes of governance do not simply arise and replace previous practices, but that multiple knowledges, techniques, and strategies overlap and intertwine at any given time.As Hannah-Moffat argues, "multiple expressions of power coexist in penal settings."4 Hannah-Moffat uses women's penality as a lens through which to examine a broad range of theoretical concerns.Most directly, she is interested in the specific historic development of women-centred prisons [hereinafter PunWisment in DS.uisel.C. Strange, Book Review of "TcrortoEvidDocrs' ": pans andPaudmrcnts t Nmctc: thzlcntt, Ontarioby P.
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 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.016 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.017 | 0.003 |
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".