Gendering Spies: Characterizations of the Gouzenko Affair in the Press
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Gouzenko Affair spy scandal took place in a barely post-war Canada that was still experiencing the instability created by the shift from total war to uncertain peacetime. However, despite the fact that this period of transition demonstrates some unique and fascinating cultural and social beliefs, it is largely unstudied by scholars. The Gouzenko Affair itself, in histories, is usually reduced to being solely about the actions of state and police. However, the cultural mores of the time profoundly shaped how the public viewed both the titular Igor Gouzenko and those accused of being Soviet spies. Through press coverage of the Affair, it is possible to study the ways in which the news media—a major access point for studying public opinion—characterized those involved and therefore the ways in they were viewed by the public at large. I will primarily focus on the ways in which Gouzenko and those tried for spying enacted—and were portrayed as enacting—gender roles. In Ottawa’s Evening Citizen and Montreal’s The Gazette newspapers, both of which contained significant coverage of the Affair and the following spy trials, there is a clear focus on gender and the ways in which those involved in the Gouzenko Affair fit or did not fit into expected roles and stereotypes. Member of Parliament Fred Rose—the most famous of the accused—initially appeared to embody the masculine ideals of post-war Canada. However, as his espionage trial continued, he became more and more passive, eclipsed by a new democratic hero in the defector Igor Gouzenko. On the other hand, the press struggled to make sense of the three women who were accused of being spies. They did not at all fit the Mata Hari stereotype of the femme fatale female spy nor the ideal of conventional women of the time, rendering them confusing figures in public opinion.
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 | 0.003 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.012 | 0.025 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.013 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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 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".