MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W258830473

Science Culture in the Nineteenth Century: Women and the Botanical Society of Canada

2010· article· en· W258830473 on OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff
Kerrie Kennedy

Bibliographic record

VenueResources for feminist research · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicHistorical and Literary Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAmateurAmusementPolitenessIdeologySociologyNaturalismPleasureLawSocial sciencePoliticsHistoryPolitical sciencePsychologyPhilosophy
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Looking at the surviving records of the Botanical Society of Canada (1860-1863), this article considers the presence and activity of women in in the nineteenth century, The evidence of their independent scientific studies during this period in which science was in transition towards the model we currently recognize indicates that there is a need to reconsider the limited roles and places of women, and other marginalized participants in the history of science. ********** In 1829 John Lindley held his inaugural lecture as the first professor of botany at London University. The underpinning ideology of this lecture was the necessity to save the important of botany from languishing as mere polite accomplishment and amusement for ladies and to reinforce its importance as an occupation for of enlightened minds. (1) Ann Shteir has noted that Lindley's deliberate separation of polite botany as a pastime for women and botanical as a pursuit for men signaled the direction botanical culture took during the succeeding decades. (2) This is also the period in which a shift that initiated a split between amateur and professional practitioners began and the formerly fluid identities of naturalist and scientist began to harden into distinctive, defined categories into which it was increasingly difficult to gain entry. Although botany had been considered as particularly suited to women, in part due to women's apparent pleasure in flowers, space for women within botanical culture shrank as opportunities within botany began to grow. However, this does not mean that those who appeared to be excluded from the new categories of professional, expert, legitimate, and scientist simply accepted being defined out of participation, or accepted their relegation to the fringes and outskirts of the growing scientific community. If we concur with Deglar's argument that proscriptive writing and positioning occurs as an attempt to establish new ideologies and behaviours, and are only necessary when the intended audience does not behave in the proscribed manner, (3) than the continued arguments to limit amateur participation (and women were considered de facto amateurs) raises the possibility that women and other amateurs likely continued to be more active and central than their professional counterparts considered desirable. Botany came to be particularly associated with women for much of the nineteenth century particularly because botanical activities fitted neatly with gendered assumptions about feminine characteristics and role in society; the aesthetics of flowers were considered to parallel feminine beauty and botanical studies were considered an antidote to women's frivolous nature and to superficial accomplishments. In addition, botanical studies offered both the possibility of increased health through outdoor exercise that could be con ducted within one's own garden, if necessary, at a gentle non-taxing pace, (4) and a path to piety through natural theology. (5) Moreover, there was no cruelty involved as there was with other scientific pursuits that involved animals or insects that were killed, dissected, or mounted for collections, and it encouraged observation, (6) rational thought, a systematic approach and perseverance to learn about plants and to create a collection or herbaria, the hallmark of serious study. (7) This feminine identification became so strong that towards the end of the century one writer was inspired to ask in Science magazine, Is Botany a Suitable Study for Young Men? (8) The sense of female identification may have spurred men like Lindley to publicly differentiate their activities in order to bolster and solidify their sense of masculinity and the social value and worth of their botanical work. (9) Examining the surviving records of the Botanical Society of Canada (1860-1863) presents an opportunity to consider the case of Mrs. …

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)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesScience and technology studies
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.875
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.005
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.341
Teacher spread0.316 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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
Published2010
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueResources for feminist researchSame topicHistorical and Literary StudiesFrench-language works237,207