MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2265073568 · doi:10.55016/ojs/ajer.v61i2.55884

Women’s University Fiction, 1880-1945 (2014) by Anna Bogen

2016· article· en· W2265073568 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Jennifer Helgren

Bibliographic record

VenueAlberta Journal of Educational Research · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicHistorical Gender and Feminism Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFantasyMathematics educationPsychologySociologyArtLiterature

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Anna Bogen sets out to challenge interpretations of women's university fiction as flat or failed.Her sophisticated literary analysis of early 20thcentury university fiction, or coming-of-age fiction within the Oxbridge (University of Oxford in Oxford, England, and University of Cambridge in Cambridge, England) setting, adds to our understanding of women's place in the university and demonstrates how gender affects genre.Bogen sees university fiction as a particular subgenre of Bildungsroman in which the main character reaches self-realization and an independent subject position through education.Comparing men's and women's novels, Bogen argues that women's exclusion from the center of university life made it difficult for women authors to comfortably fit their narratives into the traditional Bildungsroman structure.However, rather than jettison the genre, women authors used it to expose women's marginality in the university and in the process, exposed the genre's tensions.Bogen's texts include those that received critical analyses, such as Compton Mackenzie's foundational Sinister Street (1913), Virginia Woolf's "A Woman's College from the Outside" (1926), and Rosamond Lehmann's Dusty Answer (1927) as well as texts that many critics ignored.Bogen's book complements Elaine Showalter's Faculty Towers: The Academic Novel and Its Discontents (2005), an examination of university fiction after World War II, but it is the first sustained analysis of early 20th-century women's university fiction in England.Bogen successfully contextualizes the university novel within the variety of challenges modernity posed to late 19th-century universities but her central concern is women's place in the university as they began to attend in large numbers.Although separated in women's colleges like Girton, women studied at Oxford and Cambridge as early as 1869.They still faced "trenchant opposition" (p.16), including a quota system to limit their numbers at Oxford, which was in force until the 1920s.University administrations barred women from voting faculty positions and from extracurricular activities, and women coped with prevailing fears that learning eroded women's health.Mass enlistments of Oxbridge men during World War I and evolving sexual attitudes that reflected popular psychology prompted further female enrollments.Women finally earned Oxford degrees in 1920 and full equal membership at Cambridge in 1948.Before then, the women's colleges had only unofficial recognition.Women might have been permitted to sit for exams but it was largely at the discretion of male dons and women earned only titular degrees.Thus Oxbridge accorded women educational opportunities outside the home, a central feature of Bildungsroman, but because women remained marginalized within institutions of higher learning, self-discovery and social integration were only partially possible for women.

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 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)0.005
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.567
Threshold uncertainty score0.987

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0140.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.073
GPT teacher head0.373
Teacher spread0.300 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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

Citations2
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAlberta Journal of Educational ResearchSame topicHistorical Gender and Feminism StudiesFrench-language works237,207