Bibliographic record
Abstract
To protect the anonymity of the interviewees, we have assigned a pseudonym to each woman and provided only limited information about each of them. For some of the women interviewed by Ward and Kassebaum, very little personal information was available. Women Interviewed by Ward and Kassebaum at CIW in the early 1960s April had been at CIW for three weeks after spending two months in jail. She was serving a twenty-year sentence for manslaughter; she stabbed a man, probably her boyfriend or husband, to death. Before this commitment, she had served jail time on drunk and disorderly charges. The interviewer notes she had lived “under authority” in a state mental hospital. Barbara was an eighteen-year-old who had been transferred to CIW from a youth facility because she was “unmanageable” and had escaped once. Although she admits to having committed a number of felonies, she did not have a felony conviction. The interviewer notes that Barbara had been in and out of jail and girls' schools for seven years. She was interviewed after only one week at CIW. Corinne had served one year at CIW on a conviction for grand theft and forgery. A representative on the inmate council, she had been a truck driver before coming to prison. Corinne, white, was twenty-seven years old, and had children. She had dropped out of high school before finishing tenth grade. Doris was a regular user of marijuana and pills on the outside, which got her into trouble with the law. She had been in prison before, and her criminal record included three prior felony convictions. She told the interviewer that she had attempted suicide twice before when she was not in prison, the most recent attempt five years ago. Raped at age sixteen by her mother's boyfriend, she had been married once, but only for a week. She referred to herself as bisexual. She was interviewed a second time after she returned to prison on parole violation.
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 | 0.003 | 0.025 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.268 | 0.053 |
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".