Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper examines the role of women's testimony in extradition cases between Canada and the United States from 1868 to 1923. In Canada, only 35 women testified in court in a total of 407 cases. In most instances, the women testifying were married and testifying to their husband's innocence or guilt. In these cases, their husband's extradition, conviction, and liberation were often determined by what they said. Women who testified as victims of crimes, often assaults, saw far more ambiguous success. Ideas about the purity of women influenced whether the courts listened to the testimony of unmarried women and girls or allowed them to testify in the first place. Finally, in rare instances, women appeared in these transnational court cases in a professional capacity (often as doctors or secretaries). While married women were treated with respect and single women with some suspicion, divorced women were scrutinized heavily. This divergence, especially in the Canadian courts, emphasizes the uneven ways the border influenced married life. Divorce was illegal in Canada at this time, and marriage was viewed as the building block of Canada's new society. As such, many divorced women who came from the United States were belittled and overly questioned compared to married women from Canada. As a result, this paper argues that Canadian and American attempts to punish criminals who fled across national borders prioritized looking at a woman's marital status above all other factors when assessing whether a potential witness might have valuable information for the courts.
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 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 | 0.004 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".