MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2599211950 · doi:10.1353/vpr.2017.0012

How I Came to Write A Magazine of Her Own?: Domesticity and Desire in the Woman’s Magazine, 1800–1914

2017· article· en· W2599211950 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Margaret Beetham

Bibliographic record

VenueVictorian periodicals review · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicIrish and British Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSurpriseGirlSign (mathematics)Product (mathematics)SociologyGender studiesHistoryMedia studiesPsychologySocial psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

How I Came to Write A Magazine of Her Own?:Domesticity and Desire in the Woman’s Magazine, 1800–1914 Margaret Beetham (bio) I never intended to be an academic. It is true that I had gained a place at Oxford in the late 1950s, arriving there, the product of a somewhat irregular education, to find myself outnumbered nine to one by male students. However, I was a 1950s girl. Though I graduated in 1961, we didn’t know yet that it was “the ’60s.” We didn’t know that our world was about to change. I thought I would be a school teacher, get married, have babies. And I did the first two fairly rapidly, marrying someone I had met at Oxford and teaching in a variety of secondary schools, following my husband around Britain as he undertook various courses and jobs. We moved to Manchester so that he could do postgraduate study, and I supported him financially until he got a post at Manchester University. When I became pregnant, I had to give up the teaching job I loved. No surprise there. Disapproval of working mothers was powerful, as I was to discover over the next few years, and discrimination against women was written into law. As a married woman, I still couldn’t rent a television in my own name, let alone sign any other kind of financial document, even though I was the wage earner. However, it was 1967. The ripples of what we called “Women’s Liberation,” which later came to be called “second-wave feminism,” were already being felt, though we did not know yet how this wave would sweep us up, tumble us about—women and men—and land us breathless far from where we started. Where I landed—five years later—was in a just-launched interdisciplinary MA program on late Victorian and Edwardian society at Manchester [End Page 238] University, which included literature, political theory, and social history. I had two lovely daughters and had worked part-time since the birth of my first child in formal and informal education: setting up and co-running a pre-school play group and teaching both adult evening classes and daytime classes for young women punch-card operators in an Oldham factory. I was involved in the women’s movement, the peace movement, and local politics. But I wanted to go back to studying. At Oxford, the English degree had included nothing of a later date than Tennyson’s “The Princess,” and the course was still shaped by Arnold’s ideal of the touchstone. However, I had always read the Victorians, and now I wanted a different kind of study. The MA was water to a thirsty woman. I loved it. Two years later, I applied for and got a post in the English and History Department at Manchester Polytechnic. The polytechnics were run by the local authorities rather than the central government. We offered degrees but we were not a university. Compared with those at the “old University,” our students were more likely to be local, to have left school early, and to be less well-qualified, but they were eager to learn. My academic colleagues, too, were almost without exception able men who were the first in their families to get a BA, let alone the doctorates they had gained at universities in Britain and the United States. They were clever, argumentative, committed to their students, and perpetually at war with the hierarchy and sometimes with each other. I owe them much, especially Brian Maidment and Jeffrey Wainwright. Scorned by the “proper University” “up the road,” we set about reinventing English studies. We read Raymond Williams, we argued about class, we taught courses with immodest titles like “Language, Society and Culture.” We not only read Mary Barton with our students (Gaskell was not highly rated in those days) but also gave them Engels, copies of popular street ballads (“Manchester’s Improving Daily”), and photocopies of the Poor Man’s Guardian and Penny Paper. Arnold turned in his grave. Of course we were not alone. We were part of a much wider movement where what is now called “cultural studies” was being invented...

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.617
Threshold uncertainty score0.639

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
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 head0.031
GPT teacher head0.328
Teacher spread0.298 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
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

Citations3
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueVictorian periodicals reviewSame topicIrish and British StudiesFrench-language works237,207