Men and manliness on the frontier: Queensland and British Columbia in the mid-nineteenth century
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In mid-nineteenth century Britain there existed a dominant masculine ethos denoted by the term ‘manliness’. ‘Manliness’ encompassed the virtues of courage, stoicism, endurance, self-control, temperance, honesty and integrity. Above all the possession of ‘character’ and the achievement of ‘independence’ were regarded as the primary attributes of a man. While the ‘gentleman’ supposedly embodied all the manly virtues, the ethos of manliness pervaded all classes, although it was not necessarily uniformly practised. Britain’s imperial venture saw thousands of men of all classes leave Britain for colonies such as Queensland and British Columbia. British men imagined these frontiers as sites for the performance of manliness and the achievement of manly independence. Indeed, many men found ample opportunity for the exercise of courage, perseverance and stoicism. However, the performance of manliness on the frontier was problematic. Though zealously performed by many, the manly ideal was not successfully practised by all. Some aspects of the ideal – sobriety, sexual propriety, and the fulfillment of family responsibilities – were put under stress by frontier. Despite the pervasiveness of a well-defined and articulated ethos of manliness, the actuality was quite different. In practice, there was no absolute standard, no hard and fast line between manliness and unmanliness. The manly ethos was a driver on the frontier, influencing actions and determining responses to frontier conditions. The doctrine of manliness was discursively employed to marginalise and subordinate indigenous peoples and violence against indigenous people was often regarded as an expression of manly virtue.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.038 | 0.015 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.017 | 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".