MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1970247406 · doi:10.1353/vcr.2009.0048

Our Victorian Education (review)

2009· article· en· W1970247406 on OpenAlex
Vicki Macknight

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueVictorian review · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicThemes in Literature Analysis
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMeritocracyCreativityIntellectSociologyIdeal (ethics)PedagogySocial scienceLawPolitical scienceTheologyPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Reviewed by: Our Victorian Education Vicki Macknight (bio) Our Victorian Education by Dinah Birch; pp. 192. Oxford: Blackwell, 2008. $81.99 cloth, $37.99 paper. It is hard to disagree with Dinah Birch's central thesis that Victorian debates about education can help us think again about the structures and governance of contemporary British education. It was the Victorians, Birch argues, "who first conceived of education as a formal process that would be crucial [End Page 165] to the life of the nation and all its citizens, with prescribed courses of study, and outcomes measurable by examination" (2). In writing about education, Birch is interested less in the details of policy or pedagogy and more in the overarching ideal of what education could do for individuals and society. For the Victorians, Birch writes, education was to transform individuals into beings of intellect and imagination, and British society into a modern meritocracy. During the era, elementary school was made free and compulsory for all children, and the numbers of secondary schools expanded dramatically. Universities, colleges, and night schools extended the age one could continue in education. These were signs, according to Birch, of a social revolution led by education and accompanied by broad debates over just what education should do. What place should moral or religious teaching have? How should women be involved? How might the education system balance the needs of the nation's children with those of each individual? How should factual learning be balanced with the human urge for creativity and imagination? Instead of focusing on any one age group or type of education, Birch looks at these debates through a literary lens. Birch is a scholar of Victorian literature, able to navigate through the work of a long list of Victorian poets and writers. From all, she finds support for her contention that British education needs to be structured but flexible, and all children included in its humanizing efforts. "The need for national structures remains apparent," she says, "but it is also increasingly clear that its processes must co-exist with a flexibility that can make room for the individual pupil" (145). Birch freely acknowledges that in advocating these things she is not making a novel claim. And just as well. Who would disagree that we should educate children in a personal and individualistic way rather than in huge inflexible systems? That we should foster independent thought, encouraging children to grapple with the darker sides of human life, rather than educating them for thoughtless work? And who would suggest that pride in personal achievement and awareness of what one does not understand would be better than the pressures of competitive examinations in which for some to score highly others must score poorly? The difficulty is how to achieve these things. In all, Birch is animated by an admiration of the poets and writers she studies. This is well placed, of course, and she does not shy away from dealing with issues on which their thought radically differs from our own. She also writes clearly of the intersections between gender, class, and religion and their varying and sometimes contradictory impacts on debates around education. These points are explored through the first three chapters, particularly chapter 2, "Religious Learning." Here she explores the views espoused by Victorian writers on the value of religion in schools, the problematic dominance of religious values in politics and social life, and the moral questions that emerge when religious authority diminishes. Perhaps the most engaging part of this book, for me anyway, was the chapter [End Page 166] focusing on women. Here we find ample evidence for the contradictory impulses that governed the thoughts of female writers (some of whom also worked as teachers) as women gained a larger role and stake in public education. Over the century, as education for males and females became established in larger institutions, women faced questions that lie at the heart of gender difference. Should female students attend schools set up in the masculine mode? they asked. For many the answer, perhaps surprisingly, was no. There is something special, many argued, about the emotional and imaginative capacities that are fostered in the more private spheres of domestic and...

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.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.523
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.019
GPT teacher head0.292
Teacher spread0.273 · 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