Bibliographic record
Abstract
if woman, as Simone de Beauvoir has famously suggested, is not born but made, the machinery of that construction is arguably rarely more evident than in the making of the white Anglo-colonial girl of the British Empire. Impetuous, adventurous, naturally inclined to mothering, nursing, teaching, and problem solving, plucky, chaste and rosily Anglo-Saxon, this colonial girl sprang from the pages of novels, stories, magazines, catalogues and Anglo-imperial emigrationist propaganda at the end of the nineteenth century and the beginning of the twentieth. In the context of a surge of migration from Britain from the 1880s on, the colonial girl simultaneously indexes thousands of young women circulating in colonial space and represents a cluster of ideas of femininity, race, class and nation that go into her formation on and in paper. On the one hand a crucial part of what Thomas Richards has described as the imperial archive, a ‘paper empire ... built on a series of flimsy pretexts that were always becoming texts’, her representation on paper is also an archive of process — not only of always ‘becoming texts’ but of becoming ‘girl’. 1 In fiction and across cultural representations, the Anglo-colonial girl was fashioned as a figure for young women to embody, her image and the ideology she staged in the things she did and the things she wore circulating in and through the paper that carried her around the empire. ‘Made in Britain’, the colonial girl is an agent of empire, an advertisement for and consumer of its products and technologies, and an imperial commodity in circulation in and through the mobilising of her representation in print. These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.014 | 0.010 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.015 | 0.003 |
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".