LISA CHILTON. Agents of Empire: British Female Migration to Canada and Australia, 1860s-1930. (Studies in Gender and History, number 30.) Buffalo, N.Y.: University of Toronto Press. 2007. Pp. viii, 240. Cloth $60.00, paper $27.95
Bibliographic record
Abstract
British philanthropic women's entrepreneurship in women's emigration from the late nineteenth century through to the 1920s is a rich topic that has at last found its historian. While other scholars have dealt with the British Women's Emigration Association (BWEA), and the emigration work of the Girls' Friendly Society and the Young Women's Christian Association (YWCA) and several other groups, Lisa Chilton's monograph is the first to focus specifically on these organizations, and the topic of British women's emigration in this later period, as opposed to the different forms of women's migration in the mid-nineteenth century. As Chilton demonstrates, it is a substantial topic. Tens of thousands of single women emigrated from Britain to the white-settler dominions (and elsewhere) during these decades. Even as we continue to grapple with the social and cultural transformations wrought during first-wave feminism, we are still learning about the dimensions and significance of women's greater mobility: their mobility within urban environments, from hinterlands to cities, and their international travel and migration. Chilton's focus is primarily on the middle and upper-class women philanthropists and reformers who turned themselves into managers of imperial migration. She argues that we need to recognize the extent of their work, its central role in the large-scale migration from Britain in these decades, and the ways in which such work was pro-women if not explicitly feminist, as well as, more obviously, imperialist. The book is concerned with migration to Canada and Australia in particular, although there are recurrent references to other destinations such as South Africa.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".