Vindication of the Rights of Women: Mary Wollstonecraft's Progressive Limitations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
During the Enlightenment era, one of the first significant authors of feminist philosophy was a British woman named Mary Wollstonecraft. In 1792, she released The Vindication of the Rights of Women, which discussed a variety of issues, especially the education of females. Wollstonecraft attacked the inequitable system of female education for its subversion of the republican values of liberty and equality, criticizing pedagogical practices that she argued were failing (Richardson 32). Systemic sexism was causing these methods to fail at producing rational and virtuous moral subjects (Rauschenbush-Clough 135). Her outline for a national school system, with coeducation throughout the years of schooling, was a revolutionary notion. Despite the progressive elements of Wollstonecraft’s work, further speculation will reveal that her view was limited by a unique background that restricted her foresight. Her theories are arguably those of a Christian elitist, whose individual experience in the world has limited the perspective upon which she bases her proposal. This presentation will evaluate how the limitations of Wollstonecraft’s perspective may result in circumstances that would not optimize equality within her idealistic system. Discipline: English Faculty Mentor: Dr. Asma Sayed
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 | 0.009 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.012 | 0.024 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.015 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".