International Feminism, Domesticity, and the Interview in the Women's Penny Paper/Woman's Herald
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Women's Penny Paper (1888-90), later the Woman's Herald (1891-93), was the first British feminist periodical to adopt the interview as a regular feature.Launched on October 27, 1888, it published over 160 interviews with famous and lesser-known women during the first four years of its run.This period largely coincided with the tenure of founding editor and prominent women's rights activist Henrietta Müller (1845?-1906), who edited the weekly paper under the pen name Helena B. Temple.The inquisitive format of the interview seemed to fit well with the paper's ambitions, as outlined in an editorial in the first issue: "[to reproduce] the ideas of the day in their freshest and newest form" and "reflect the thoughts of the best women upon all the subjects that occupy their minds." 1 The fin-de-siècle interview, however, was a key vehicle of the New Journalism, famously dismissed by Matthew Arnold as "feather-brained" on account of its human interest stories, celebrity news, emotive reporting, and mass circulation.2 As such, it seemed, in the words of F. Elizabeth Gray, to be an "unlikely weapon for political transformation," and yet that is exactly what Women's Penny Paper/Woman's Herald became under Müller's editorship.3 This article builds on Gray's argument that the Women's Penny Paper/Woman's Herald wrestled the interview from the sensationalist press to make it "fundamental to the feminist agenda of the paper." 4 It merges insights from periodical studies with Benedict Anderson's views on community formation and Bruno Latour's actor-network theory to examine how the interview's voyeuristic preoccupation with the domestic lives of individuals paradoxically enabled the Women's Penny Paper/Woman's Herald to establish itself as a clearing house for emancipatory thinking and to attune the fragmented voices of early British feminism to the nascent international women's movement.
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 | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.012 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.001 |
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".