MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7116630547 · doi:10.1093/jsh/shae044

“Cruel Injustice”: Infanticide and Compassion in Upper Canada, 1791–1831

2024· article· en· W7116630547 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Social History · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicHistory of Emotions Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersSocial Sciences and Humanities Research Council of CanadaUniversity of Waterloo
KeywordsCompassionHomicideStatutory lawPower (physics)Focus (optics)Historiography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Using two comparatively well documented cases of suspected infanticide in Upper Canada, this article considers the role of compassion. In re-examining infanticide in Upper Canada (1791–1841) to 1831 when the statutory law on infanticide changed to try newborn murders exclusively as homicide, I focus here on a small number of newborn murder cases tried as either infanticide or homicide centering on the comparatively well documented cases of Angelique Pilotte and Mary Thompson. The article builds on recent historiographical developments in understanding English infanticide law as well as new research on the history of emotions and race to suggest that compassion can be understood as a vector for power and a part of an affective domain of domination.

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.

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 categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.334
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 studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.033
GPT teacher head0.253
Teacher spread0.221 · 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