"Us poor Devils.": prison life and culture in Ontario: 1874-1914
Bibliographic record
Abstract
What was life like in the prisons of early Ontario? What kind of people were the inmates, these “poor devils?” The goal of this thesis is to answer these questions. The three prisons in Ontario, the provincial Central Prison for men and the Andrew Mercer Reformatory for women as well as the federal Kingston Penitentiary, all embraced, with varying success, contemporary criminological theories. Brutal and strange, grim and yet sometimes hilarious, the intensity of the prison regime could not fail to transform the perspectives of all who were touched by it. Twentieth century sociologists have studied the unique environment of the prison and have suggested several theories to explain the behaviours of inmates. At the heart of every analysis was one question: who was the inmate? This was a question that Ontario inmates also asked themselves. From the moment they first entered the prison, inmates' identities were called into question. They were made to wear uniforms, told how to cut their hair, how to speak, how to eat and what to eat. And yet while convicts were forced to make personal adaptations to imprisonment, prisoners and staff alike struggled to move beyond their predetermined roles and interact as human beings. The enmity between prisoners and staff produced much violence and brutality on both sides. It also nourished the solidarity of convicts and their secretive “code” of conduct, with its contraband merchandise and premeditated acts of escape and revolt. Nevertheless, many guards were enthusiastic participants in the convict-led contraband trade, and some formed genuine friendships with prisoners. The prison was a far less formal place than it seemed and convicts, wardens, guards, guests and even visiting children intermingled and related to each other on a personal, rather than completely professional basis. When it came time to leave prison, convicts again began asking themselves, “Who am I?” For those who made it back to the outside world, reintegration was often a time for new beginnings. Many convicts moved to new cities and started new careers and reflected on their freedom with a new perspective and a heightened appreciation.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.012 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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 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".