Against Hegemonic Currents: Women's Rowing into the First Half of the Twentieth Century
Bibliographic record
Abstract
While women's rowing events were formally introduced onto the programme of the European Rowing Championships in 1954, oarswomen had long been paddling across lakes and rivers throughout the world. As early as the 1500s, there were references made to women's participation in the sport. However, like other sports, the majority of information on the history of rowing has focussed primarily on men's participation. It has been recognized that socially elite men were the sole participants in the sport of rowing at private clubs and academic institutions during their leisure time, while working-class men rowed along canals, rivers and lakes throughout the world for their livelihood. As a result, the elite were able to define who was permitted to participate in ‘amateur’ rowing and on what terms, while professional rowing was reserved for labourers. This article seeks to examine the history of women's participation in the sport of rowing prior to the middle of the twentieth-century. It will show that early female rowing enthusiasts were not mere bystanders; when they found themselves excluded, female rowers were not deterred from participation and created their own rowing opportunities.
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.017 | 0.026 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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 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".