LIAT KOZMA. Policing Egyptian Women: Sex, Law, and Medicine in Khedival Egypt.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In the quarter century since the publication of Judith Tucker's Women in Nineteenth Century Egypt (1985), a mere handful of books have appeared that examine the lives of nineteenth-century Egyptian women. Liat Kozma's Policing Egyptian Women is a welcome and important addition to this genre and will be necessary reading for students of women and gender in Egyptian and Middle Eastern history generally. Kozma discusses the new forms of surveillance and control of women that were instituted during the pre-colonial Tanzimat era of governmental reorganization in Egypt, but not only that. She is also concerned with showing how the power of the (then-) modern state as well as individual subjectivities were constituted through the interaction of ordinary Egyptians with government officials and institutions. This interaction took place at numerous sites, including Shariʿa courts, judicial councils that applied criminal and administrative law, and police stations, to name those included in Kozma's archive. The police and councils were new, part of the project of rationalizing and centralizing government institutions, while the pre-existing Shariʿa courts were restructured to work in concert with them. Numerous cases demonstrate how these three institutions worked together, contrary to the old view that “modern, secular” institutions eclipsed “traditional, religious” ones during the nineteenth century.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".