Ted McCoy. Four Unruly Women: Stories of Incarceration and Resistance from Canada’s Most Notorious Prison. Vancouver: University of British Columbia Press, 2019, 148 pp.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Four Unruly Women: Stories of Incarceration and Resistance from Canada's Most Notorious Prison provides an in-depth understanding of women's resistance in Canada and the subjugation of Indigenous Peoples in Canada.The author accomplishes this by undertaking a case analysis of the resistance actions of four women inmates against prison authorities and administration through strikes, minor infractions of rules and regulations, slang or argots, and norm violations.Excluding the first and last chapters, the introduction, and the conclusion, the remaining chapters consist of case analyses of these four inmates.Kingston Penitentiary's changes in punishment patterns and policies parallel the lives of the four convicts, which the author uses to highlight the need for prison reform in Canada.Through an exploration of four cases in a single prison from 1838 to 1934, the book reveals that solitary confinement failed to reform criminals despite punishments such as dark cells, boxes, and dungeons.The author critiques prison systems as ineffective due to their effects on the physical and mental health of prisoners, crime commission, reoffending, and attempts at suicide.In parallel with colonial prisons and the cases of Bridget Donnelly, Charlotte Reveille, Emily Boyle, and Kate Slattery, prisons continue to exert extreme power over prisoners through ineffective confinement against resistance.In the first chapter, the author analyzes the Canadian prison context and describes the methodological and theoretical approach of the book.The author then argues that the impact of punishment on crime is less significant than its social position and calls for societal changes to address unemployment, poverty, and marginalization that promote resistance, and emphasizes the need for political-economic and feminist perspectives.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.012 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.014 | 0.004 |
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".