MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W132675521 · doi:10.3138/cjh.37.3.459

“The Highest Type of Englishman”: Gender, War, and the Alfred the Great Commemoration of 1901

2002· article· en· W132675521 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Stephen Heathorn

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of History · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicAustralian History and Society
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHonourRhetoricPoliticsSociologyMeaning (existential)LawRepresentation (politics)JournalismVariety (cybernetics)AestheticsHistoryMedia studiesPhilosophyPolitical scienceEpistemologyTheology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The 1901 Millenary Commemoration of the death of Alfred the Great was a prescriptive event, designed both to honour the memory of the “father of the English race” and to re-invigorate the supposed masculine virtues of the contemporary nation at a time of imperial crisis. Planned and staged during the politically divisive Anglo-Boer war, the commemoration was promoted by a variety of mostly liberal and progressive organizers. However, the representation of Alfred and what he stood for was fiercely contested, and conservatives and liberal imperialists endorsed the events and appropriated the meaning of Alfred’s legacy for their own political arguments and journalism. The cultural politics of this commemorative moment, most particularly of the monument designed to honour Alfred and the rhetoric of those swept-up in the hyperbolic adulation of Alfred in 1901, provides insight into the processes of the construction of national memory, of the plasticity of ideas about masculine heroism, and of the use of historical icons for completely opposing political objectives.

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 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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
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 score0.328
Threshold uncertainty score0.564

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.002
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.082
GPT teacher head0.276
Teacher spread0.194 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations2
Published2002
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of HistorySame topicAustralian History and SocietyFrench-language works237,207