“Knowing Something I Was Not Meant to Know”: Exploring Vulnerability, Sexuality, and Childhood, 1900–50
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this Forum, I explore the discourse of Canadian doctors and educators regarding childhood sexuality, a topic laden with emotional import and moral hand-wringing, and some of the ways youngsters responded to it between 1900 and 1950. Historians have largely overlooked the “everydayness” of sexuality in childhood in Canada perhaps because the topic risks challenging long-standing associations between childhood and innocence. History, however, points to more complex relationships among youngsters, adult experts, and discourses of sexuality and, in particular, sexuality education. Here, I put expert discourse in conversation with oral histories of Canadians who felt the impact of this adult-produced discourse in their childhoods. The participants testify to the inadequate and inaccurate information about their own bodies that resulted in silence and miseducation regarding sexuality. This miseducation produced fear, shame, and, ultimately, vulnerability in many young people and reinforced unequal relations of power. In the most extreme cases, children were rendered more, not less, vulnerable to abuse by adults and even other children.
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 | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.011 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.014 | 0.023 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".