MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2036828568 · doi:10.1353/vpr.2015.0007

Juvenile Nation: Youth, Emotions and the Making of the Modern British Citizen, 1880–1914 by Stephanie Olsen (review)

2015· article· en· W2036828568 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Annemarie McAllister

Bibliographic record

VenueVictorian periodicals review · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicHistorical Studies on Reproduction, Gender, Health, and Societal Changes
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSociologyOmnipresenceCitizenshipMasculinityMedia studiesElement (criminal law)Gender studiesHistoryPoliticsLawPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Reviewed by: Juvenile Nation: Youth, Emotions and the Making of the Modern British Citizen, 1880–1914 by Stephanie Olsen Annemarie McAllister (bio) Stephanie Olsen, Juvenile Nation: Youth, Emotions and the Making of the Modern British Citizen, 1880–1914 (London: Bloomsbury Academic, 2014), pp. xviii + 238, $120/ £65 cloth. In the relatively new field of the history of the emotions, Olsen’s book might seem to have little to offer to those primarily interested in periodicals. However, such a view would be mistaken, as its investigation of the “informal education” system by which concepts of masculinity and citizenship were shaped focuses largely upon periodicals and the organisations that produced them. Olsen offers contextualised re-readings of familiar titles, such as the Boys’ Own Paper (1879–1969), as well as brief studies of less familiar magazines such as Onward (1865–1910) and the Young Crusader (1893–1915). She explores fin de siècle concerns about the cultural formation of future citizens in the generation before World War I, as well as broader worries about the individual’s place in the nation and empire amid fears of moral degeneracy. By “informal education,” Olsen refers to instruction received outside of formal schooling, such as the sessions provided by the many voluntary organisations set up to work with young people, ranging from the Band of Hope (1847) to the Boy Scouts (1908). Another key element was the omnipresence of children’s periodical journalism. Olsen declares that “these informal influences are at least as important as formal channels of education for our understanding of the history of education, but have been significantly underdeveloped in the historiography” (7). Such emphasis on the importance of periodicals and their producers is welcome. Olsen also makes the valuable point that periodicals sponsored by such groups should be considered within the context of other activities sponsored by educational organisations. For example, she shows that the moral concerns of Alfred Harmsworth (1865–1922) underpinned his productions for boys. This strategy of contextualisation enables a deeper reading of periodicals and acts as a corrective to the mere “mining” of data which can be a risk, especially in digital research. Such magazines had a mission to counter the “subversive” influences of the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, [End Page 149] falling in line with a founder’s or sponsor’s deeply held beliefs. Harmsworth’s Boys’ Herald (1877–78), for example, featured coupons to attend a “Boys’ Herald Hobby Club” designed to keep youths usefully engaged and off the streets. While this may have been a circulation-boosting measure, it should not be assumed that this was its sole, or even its prime, purpose. Harmsworth’s Associated Press created several such organizations (such as the “League of Boy Friends”) that shared a common mission and offered examinations and competitions to train boys for their future careers and citizenship. Olsen’s book is based on her PhD thesis, and at times this is evident in its introductory sections to the chapters, nods to theory and existing scholarship in the introduction, and frequent restatement of key arguments and their importance. However, this never obtrudes too much into the flow of reading, and it does ensure that any argument is well supported by examples and notes. The one chapter that looks outside the United Kingdom, “Recasting Imperial Masculinity: Informal Education and the Empire of Domesticity,” focuses on organisations and tracts, so the opportunity to explore colonial periodicals does not arise, which is disappointing. But the book is rich in other examples that act as reminders for seasoned readers and as an introduction to the range and interest of these magazines for those unfamiliar with the titles. High circulations and long runs, in many cases, should challenge the notion that children’s periodicals are “niche” publications, and Olsen convincingly establishes their importance. There are many incidental items of interest. For example, she mentions mechanisms of the market, such as subscription and localisation, which are still not fully explored. This brief coverage can at times be frustrating, reminding the reader that Olsen’s main interest does not lie in periodical studies. Olsen’s most interesting point, for this reader, is her exploration of the “child exemplar,” who is depicted...

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.056
Threshold uncertainty score0.112

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.002

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 head0.075
GPT teacher head0.273
Teacher spread0.197 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

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

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

Citations0
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueVictorian periodicals reviewSame topicHistorical Studies on Reproduction, Gender, Health, and Societal ChangesFrench-language works237,207