Women on Their Own: Interdisciplinary Perspectives on Being Single. Ed. by Rudolph M. Bell and Virginia Yans. (New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press, 2008. viii, 273 pp. $49.95, ISBN 978-0-8135-4210-2.)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
On the whole, it is encouraging to see from this interdisciplinary collection of essays that the historical subject of single women is becoming more complex. Once, it was no subject at all, then it acquired some standing as the study of what was once called spinsters, and now the historical study of single women has proliferated. This book, for example, arises from a year-long seminar in 2003–2004 at the Rutgers Center for Historical Analysis, whose Web page now offers a bibliography on works that deal with this subject (http://www.scc.rutgers.edu/rcha) and links to related resources, notably the Scholars of Single Women Network (http://medusanet.ca/singlewomen/resources/bib_main.htm). The essays in Women on Their Own range widely, at least on topics since the early nineteenth century. Widows loom large: they vote in Montreal in 1832, run businesses in Albany from 1813 to 1885, give away millions of dollars in the person of Olivia Sage, and weep decorously for Confederate heroes. Women who never married are conspicuous, too: in Victorian and Edwardian Britain, the American depression of the 1930s, contemporary Ireland, the recent United States, and the modern Caribbean. There is even an essay on how blind women considered the business of not marrying, an essay in which Helen Keller is significant.
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 | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".