MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2766930096 · doi:10.3138/cras.2017.018

Black Women and State-Sanctioned Violence: A History of Victimization and Exclusion

2017· article· en· W2766930096 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Breea C. Willingham

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Review of American Studies · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicCriminal Justice and Corrections Analysis
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDehumanizationInjusticeCriminologyRacismRace (biology)Criminal justiceState (computer science)PrisonWhite (mutation)SociologyPolitical scienceGender studiesLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Black women and girls continue to battle the intersecting oppressions of race, gender, and justice while living in a society that routinely derogates them and while being victimized by a criminal justice system that was never designed to protect them. This is most evident in their experiences as victims of police violence, including being beaten, raped, or shot to death. This state-sanctioned violence continues decades after the legal end of slavery, and it characterizes the sustained impact race and gender have on black women's experiences with the criminal justice system. This article examines the violence black women have historically endured as subjects of terror or objects for white men, and how this violence is perpetuated in the same way today through interactions with police. I argue that the contemporary state-sanctioned violence black women and girls experience is a manifestation of their continued victimization, dehumanization, and social exclusion, and is a function of the systemic racism that permeates the American criminal injustice system.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.064
Threshold uncertainty score0.128

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0100.009
Scholarly communication0.0040.003
Open science0.0010.004
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.026
GPT teacher head0.323
Teacher spread0.297 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations42
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Review of American StudiesSame topicCriminal Justice and Corrections AnalysisFrench-language works237,207