MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4408505012 · doi:10.1017/s0738248024000439

“Up with the Brave”: Gender, Transgression and Judges’ Use of Catholic Convents in England and Ireland, 1930–1959

2025· article· en· W4408505012 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Máiréad Enright

Bibliographic record

VenueLaw and History Review · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicEarly Modern Women Writers
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersQueen's UniversityQueen's University BelfastLeverhulme TrustUniversity of BirminghamBoston College
KeywordsMarine transgressionGender studiesPolitical scienceSociologyHistoryLawGeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Using newspaper coverage of women's and girl's property offences in minor English and Irish courts, I analyze courts’ use of Catholic convent institutions between 1930 and 1959. Coverage of minor local hearings offers access to everyday cases, where boundaries between moral and legal transgression were blurred. I explore three interlocking themes in newspaper reports. First, those courts sent to convents were punished, at least in part, for breaching prevailing gendered moral norms. Second, judges represented convents as sites of moral reform; justifying convent detention by reinforcing gendered notions of damaged female agency. Finally, judges sent women and girls to convents even when they publicly resisted. In these ways, courts reinforced reliance on convents for gendered “moral reclamation.” In the conclusion, I explore the argument's implications for state reckoning with historical abuses in institutions like Ireland's Magdalene laundries, showing how abolition feminist legal histories can pose new questions about relationships between law and the experience of mass incarceration.

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)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.012
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.152
Threshold uncertainty score0.303

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.012
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0030.009
Scholarly communication0.0030.001
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0010.002
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 head0.062
GPT teacher head0.238
Teacher spread0.177 · 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 designNot applicable
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

Citations2
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueLaw and History ReviewSame topicEarly Modern Women WritersFrench-language works237,207