“It’s Sexual Assault. It’s Barbaric”: Strip Searching in Women’s Prisons as State-Inflicted Sexual Assault
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Rationale: In the era of the #MeToo movement, sexual assault has emerged from the shadows to become a dominant topic of public and scholarly conversation. Yet women in prison have largely been left out of these conversations, particularly as it relates to their experiences of being strip searched. Method: Five cisgender women were interviewed about their experiences being strip searched while imprisoned in Canada. Findings: Findings demonstrate that strip searching is a form of sexual assault. Women were unable to say “no” to being strip searched due to power imbalances and fear of serious consequences. Experiences of prior sexual victimization made being strip searched particularly harmful. Discussion: This study shows that structural violence occurring behind prison walls is a replication of structural violence occurring in the community. That strip-searching policies and practices are developed and implemented by the state necessarily means it is state-inflicted sexual assault. I theorize that strip searching is not understood as sexual assault because imprisoned women are relegated to a class of subhumanness for which humane treatment is not required. Implications: Implications for reducing the harms of strip searching are discussed, aimed at moving toward the abolishment of strip searching as a practice in women’s prisons.
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.
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 it