‘To rough it in the outdoors…would not have been becoming to a young lady’
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The first private Ontario summer camps for girls’ were established in the Algonquin region shortly after the First World War. At a time in which the out-of-doors was not considered an acceptable place for a young woman, these institutions may have represented a shift in socially-appropriate behaviour in the sphere of recreation and leisure for women. In an effort to shed light on this particular hypothesis, this study explores the ways in which private girls’ camps conformed to or diverged from the gender ideologies of the period; however, it also considers the factors, which may have facilitated the development of such institutions. As little academic work has been done on the subject of camping, my research relied almost exclusively on primary source material, namely memoirs, brochures, and prescriptive literature, from the Camping Collections of the Trent University Archives. That said the writings of gender and recreation theorists provided important tools for comparative analysis. I found that the ideal of womanhood promoted in private girls’ camps in this period was decidedly ambiguous, as it at once reflected and resisted contemporary notions of femininity. Furthermore, I argue that the emergence of girls camps in this period can be linked to developments within the socio-political contexts of Canadian society, such as the emergence of maternal feminism, the success of the women’s suffrage movement and changes in fashion, in addition to concurrent changes in boys’ camping.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.012 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.022 | 0.004 |
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".