A case of seduction: sexual violence and the law in Southern Alberta, 1922
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Phillips seduction case, tried in a Lethbridge, Alberta court in 1922, reveals that the extent to which the law of seduction empowered women to pursue justice in cases of sexual assault was limited by the ways in which patriarchal society regulated women’s sexuality. May Phillips was a white, American-immigrant teenager living with her family in the Wrentham sectional house in 1922. She was repeatedly assaulted by John Johnson, the forty-year-old section foreman. In court, both crown and defense characterized Phillips and Johnson in ways that reflect patterns present in other seduction cases. The degree to which May Phillips and John Johnson fit social expectations of, respectively, the victim and assailant of seduction was a key aspect of the case. The law against seduction, in which precedents were steeped in highly gendered and patriarchal notions of morality and social purity, only protected women who would be understood by the court as deserving of protection. Establishing moral superiority over the perpetrator was crucial. Although pregnancy and abortion were often common to seduction cases the victim was required to prove that she was previously chaste.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".