MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3120295061

Queen's women : the Contagious Diseases Acts of 1866 and 1869.

2017· article· en· W3120295061 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Melissa N. Bettes

Bibliographic record

VenueSHAREOK (University of Oklahoma) · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicHistorical Studies on Reproduction, Gender, Health, and Societal Changes
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsQueen (butterfly)BiologyZoology
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This thesis will examine the implementation of the Contagious Diseases Acts (CDA) of 1866 and 1869 and the process undertaken by those in and out of Parliament to repeal the legislation. This task will be accomplished by reviewing government documents such as the Hansard Parliamentary Debates and Sessional Reports, the personal papers of Josephine Butler, along with her other publications, pamphlets, newspaper articles, journal articles, medical reports, and secondary works pertaining to this topic. Parliament implemented the CDA in garrison and port cities with the intention of reducing the number of soldiers and sailors afflicted with gonorrhea and syphilis by targeting the prostitutes in those areas. The act required any woman suspected of this trade to undergo examinations and to obtain treatment if diseased. She then received a certificate of health, which some used to charge more for their services, calling themselves Queen's Women, claiming the state insured their health for the men. The purpose of this work will show that while the arguments regarding the constitutional rights of the women affected and the moral question of the state legislating vice played heavily in influencing members of Parliament (MP) to repeal the Acts in 1886, the statistical data compiled by MP James Stansfeld, Halifax, proved the intention to reduce venereal disease failed.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.723
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.039
GPT teacher head0.215
Teacher spread0.176 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

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

Citations0
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSHAREOK (University of Oklahoma)Same topicHistorical Studies on Reproduction, Gender, Health, and Societal ChangesFrench-language works237,207