Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper offers an outline of an under-researched aspect of Britain and Ireland’s cycling history in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, that of cycle camping. It is well known that part of cycling’s appeal was that it allowed tens of thousands of urban cyclists to have easier access to the countryside. This often took the form of day trips by cyclists, either by solitary riders, groups of friends or, increasingly, by members of cycling clubs who went on ‘runs’ of several hours duration to scenic rural locations or favourite watering places. From the late 1870s, increasing numbers of cyclists also went on cycling holidays. The Cyclists’ Touring Club (CTC), founded in 1878, helped facilitate urban cyclists’ fondness for holidays in the countryside by establishing a network of recommended hotels and inns in which CTC members enjoyed reduced tariffs for meals and accommodation, as well as a network of volunteer guides who provided cyclist holidaymakers with information about local sites of interest. Some cyclists, however, preferred to spend their rural holidays under canvas, rather than stay in hotels or inns, whether these were recommended by the CTC or not. At first, cyclist campers were relatively few in number and acted as independent groups, but eventually in the early twentieth century two national associations were founded to provide a stronger organisational structure for these enthusiasts: the Association of Cycle Campers, in Britain, in 1901, and the Irish Cycle Campers’ Association in Ireland in 1902. This paper examines the activities of cycle campers in both countries before the formation of these two organisations, explains how the organisations came into being and discusses their impact. Particular attention will be paid to the roles of the two most prominent individuals individuals behind the cycle camping 'craze', Thomas Hiram Holding in Britain and RJ Mecredy in Ireland.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 0.002 |
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".