The Mountaineering and Wilderness Rhetorics of Washington Woman Suffragists
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract In 1909, a group of mountaineers climbed Mount Rainier during the Alaska–Yukon–Pacific Exposition and placed a “Votes for Women” pennant at the mountain summit. I argue that their ascent of Mount Rainier exploited meanings of mountaineering and the wilderness for woman suffrage: mountaineering as a symbol of imperial power, the mountain wilderness as the new mythic frontier, and walking in the western wilderness as an enactment of freedom. The imperialist meaning of mountaineering constituted woman suffragists as powerful, victorious, and capable of winning their upcoming suffrage campaign. Climbing the new frontier demonstrated that the women were physically strong enough to participate in turn-of-the-century politics and invoked the meritocratic logic of the frontier myth that suggested these women had earned their right to vote through their labor on the mountain. Walking in the western wilderness performed the climbers’ freedom to walk, think, and vote for themselves and to resist society’s gendered restrictions. Their climb invoked the ideologies of imperialism, the frontier myth, and freedom to appeal to the citizens of the Pacific Northwest for voting rights and to gain more publicity for their cause, yet it simultaneously had a rhetorical impact on the climbers themselves. By appropriating the rhetorics of mountaineering and the wilderness, they motivated and increased the morale of suffragists in the midst of a struggling movement and positioned their male companions as suffrage advocates.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".