Book review: Agents of Empire: British Female Migration to Canada and Australia, 1860s to 1930, and: Colonial Lives Across the British Empire: Imperial Careering in the Long Nineteenth Century
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In different ways, these books both deal with the making and expression of British imperial feeling through professional lives. David Lambert and Alan Lester 19s edited collection, Colonial Lives Across the British Empire, focuses on what they regard as a relatively unusual category of individual 14one whose career spanned more than one colonial or imperial destination 14whom they differentiate from the more frequently studied settler or traveller of the Empire. Comprising colonial governors, governors 19 wives, missionaries, a nurse, a poet and administrator, and a mercenary, the lives on display represent the heterogeneity of professional Empire careers across the long nineteenth century, the period from the American War of Independence to the First World War. In Agents of Empire, Lisa Chilton examines another category of Empire-driven career, that of imperially minded philanthropic women. Though primarily based in Britain, these middle-and upper-class women were dedicated to the development of the Empire through facilitating the emigration of British women to Australia and Canada. Chilton 19s study is therefore an important addition to the fields of imperial and gender history. Challenging the assumption that imperialism was a fundamentally masculine enterprise 14a position somewhat reinforced by the Lester and Lambert collection, despite the inclusion of three women 14she presents her women emigrators as agents not just of empire, but of 1Cempire feminization 1D...
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.015 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.023 | 0.005 |
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".