MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2191654193 · doi:10.1353/vcr.2000.0008

Kindred Nature: Victorian and Edwardian Women Embrace the Living World (review)

2000· article· en· W2191654193 on OpenAlex

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 · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicAmerican Environmental and Regional History
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHistoryGender studiesArtSociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Reviews Barbara T. Gates, Kindred Nature: Victorian and Edwardian Women Embrace the Living World. The University ofChicago Press, 1998. xv+293. Gates' book is an expansive exploration of the connections between women and nature, providing both a readable introduction to her subject for the general reader and an important step forward for scholars in the area ofgender and science studies. Kindred Nature addresses many of the assertions already made by writers in this area. She points out that women's studies of nature have suffered "minimalization of both numbers and roles" (4) and that "nature functions as mental and linguistic construct" that associates women with nature and thus robs them of any claim to reasoned, intellectual thought (5). Gates' study aims to correct the record. Within the well-established framework ofgender-science studies, Gates' specific contribution is two-fold. First, while being careful not to essentialize Victorian and Edwardian womanhood as natural, Gates nevertheless claims that the women in Kindred Nature formulate "distinctively female traditions in science and nature writing" (7). Gates posits that these women made use of their society's belief in the close association between women and nature, constructing nature differently to professionalizing, male scientists. Secondly, and equally importantly, Gates focuses on these women's accomplishments rather than continuing "to reiterate stories of female impotence" (250). Part One, entitled "Women on the Edge of Science," is somewhat at odds with these two tenants ofher work. The first chapter outlines the difficulties and challenges women faced in attempting to "speak in nature's name." For the uninitiated reader, Gates' discussion establishes how much women had accomplished by studying the natural world and by writing from their own perspectives and experiences. Yet this first chapter could lead the reader to see these women's lives and their approaches to nature which make up the rest of the work, as marginal to the 'real' work ofscience carried out by the professionalizing male scientist in the second-half of the century. Ifthe reader can pigeon-hole chapter one as a jumping-off point from which Gates' work extends, then Kindred Nature 1 24volume 26 number 2 Reviews succeeds in both ofits aims. Gates has uncovered an astonishing number ofwomen whose lives and writings were dedicated to communicating their views of nature to the reading public. These women experimented with new forms ofwriting natural history; they formulated original ways ofworking with and imaging the natural world. It seems almost unfair to zero in on any one or two women in the space of a review. Examples ofthese women's unique endeavours abound, such as the work ofArabella Buckley (1840-1929), known for a long time as Sir Charles Lyells secretary. Buckley rises to new heights in Kindred Nature as a revisionist of Darwin. Ahead ofher time, Buckley believed that "the raison d'etre for evolution was not just the preservation oflife but the development ofmutuality as well" (60). Further along, we meet Anna Kingsford (1846-1888) who, rather than a revisionist, was a creator of what Gates calls a "womanist view of nature." Kingsford "wanted to revamp the male-driven world by picturing a world in textures and colours that better suited women and nonhuman species" (144). She created a whole new religion by reconciling science and faith "by positing that all existence was essentially spiritual" (150). In the last section of the work, we find several women in chapter six creating a "Victorian female sublime" and communicating their breathless experiences of the natural world via travel and gardening literature. In chapter eight, we are introduced to several women who created "storied animals," bringing alive the individual zoo captive, pet or wild animals' life. In all cases, the women oíKindred Nature are in sympathy with the natural world of their studies, worlds that were "mentally and artistically apprehended and consciously and deliberately embraced" (5). This is apparently true even with regard to the hunters, fishers and farmers of Chapter 7. However, Gates is careful to show the contradictions in such women's beliefs, noting how Mrs. R. H. Tyacke, brave big game hunter, also suckled young animals orphaned by hunters (199-200). Equally, Gates also reflects that men could be in...

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)0.001
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.606
Threshold uncertainty score0.998

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0200.002

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 head0.003
GPT teacher head0.200
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