MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W2191654193 · doi:10.1353/vcr.2000.0008

Kindred Nature: Victorian and Edwardian Women Embrace the Living World (review)

2000· article· en· W2191654193 sur OpenAlex
Suzanne Le‐May Sheffield

Pourquoi ce travail est dans la base

Une base qui oublie comment elle a trouvé un travail ne peut pas être vérifiée. Voici les voies qui ont admis celui-ci.

venuePublié dans une revue dont le pays d'attache est le Canada.
no affAucune affiliation canadienne : ce travail est invisible pour une base fondée sur la seule affiliation.
Aucune affiliation canadienne. Une base fondée sur la seule affiliation (le devis habituel) n'aurait jamais vu ce travail. C'est l'un des travaux qui justifient l'inversion de la base.

Notice bibliographique

RevueVictorian review · 2000
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineEnvironmental Science
ThématiqueAmerican Environmental and Regional History
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésHistoryGender studiesArtSociology

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Reviews Barbara T. Gates, Kindred Nature: Victorian and Edwardian Women Embrace the Living World. The University ofChicago Press, 1998. xv+293. Gates' book is an expansive exploration of the connections between women and nature, providing both a readable introduction to her subject for the general reader and an important step forward for scholars in the area ofgender and science studies. Kindred Nature addresses many of the assertions already made by writers in this area. She points out that women's studies of nature have suffered "minimalization of both numbers and roles" (4) and that "nature functions as mental and linguistic construct" that associates women with nature and thus robs them of any claim to reasoned, intellectual thought (5). Gates' study aims to correct the record. Within the well-established framework ofgender-science studies, Gates' specific contribution is two-fold. First, while being careful not to essentialize Victorian and Edwardian womanhood as natural, Gates nevertheless claims that the women in Kindred Nature formulate "distinctively female traditions in science and nature writing" (7). Gates posits that these women made use of their society's belief in the close association between women and nature, constructing nature differently to professionalizing, male scientists. Secondly, and equally importantly, Gates focuses on these women's accomplishments rather than continuing "to reiterate stories of female impotence" (250). Part One, entitled "Women on the Edge of Science," is somewhat at odds with these two tenants ofher work. The first chapter outlines the difficulties and challenges women faced in attempting to "speak in nature's name." For the uninitiated reader, Gates' discussion establishes how much women had accomplished by studying the natural world and by writing from their own perspectives and experiences. Yet this first chapter could lead the reader to see these women's lives and their approaches to nature which make up the rest of the work, as marginal to the 'real' work ofscience carried out by the professionalizing male scientist in the second-half of the century. Ifthe reader can pigeon-hole chapter one as a jumping-off point from which Gates' work extends, then Kindred Nature 1 24volume 26 number 2 Reviews succeeds in both ofits aims. Gates has uncovered an astonishing number ofwomen whose lives and writings were dedicated to communicating their views of nature to the reading public. These women experimented with new forms ofwriting natural history; they formulated original ways ofworking with and imaging the natural world. It seems almost unfair to zero in on any one or two women in the space of a review. Examples ofthese women's unique endeavours abound, such as the work ofArabella Buckley (1840-1929), known for a long time as Sir Charles Lyells secretary. Buckley rises to new heights in Kindred Nature as a revisionist of Darwin. Ahead ofher time, Buckley believed that "the raison d'etre for evolution was not just the preservation oflife but the development ofmutuality as well" (60). Further along, we meet Anna Kingsford (1846-1888) who, rather than a revisionist, was a creator of what Gates calls a "womanist view of nature." Kingsford "wanted to revamp the male-driven world by picturing a world in textures and colours that better suited women and nonhuman species" (144). She created a whole new religion by reconciling science and faith "by positing that all existence was essentially spiritual" (150). In the last section of the work, we find several women in chapter six creating a "Victorian female sublime" and communicating their breathless experiences of the natural world via travel and gardening literature. In chapter eight, we are introduced to several women who created "storied animals," bringing alive the individual zoo captive, pet or wild animals' life. In all cases, the women oíKindred Nature are in sympathy with the natural world of their studies, worlds that were "mentally and artistically apprehended and consciously and deliberately embraced" (5). This is apparently true even with regard to the hunters, fishers and farmers of Chapter 7. However, Gates is careful to show the contradictions in such women's beliefs, noting how Mrs. R. H. Tyacke, brave big game hunter, also suckled young animals orphaned by hunters (199-200). Equally, Gates also reflects that men could be in...

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Prédiction distillée sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,001
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesCharge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)
Catégories consensuellesCharge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Sans objet · Signal consensuel: aucune
GenreSignal candidat: Synthèse · Signal consensuel: Synthèse
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,606
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,998

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0010,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0000,000
Bibliométrie0,0000,001
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0000,001
Communication savante0,0000,000
Science ouverte0,0000,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,000
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0200,002

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,003
Tête enseignante GPT0,200
Écart entre enseignants0,197 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle