MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W301620754 · doi:10.3138/cjh.45.3.537

Manliness in the Life and Posthumous Reputation of Robert Falcon Scott

2010· article· en· W301620754 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Janice Cavell

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of History · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicPolar Research and Ecology
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHEROMasculinityCharacter (mathematics)IdeologyIdeal (ethics)Order (exchange)HistoryOfficerSociologyLiteratureArtArt historyLawPoliticsGender studiesPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Polar explorer Robert Falcon Scott (1868-1912) was deeply uncomfortable with and sometimes critical of the traditional masculine role into which he had been forced as a naval officer and national hero. Yet it was necessary for him to accept this role in order to fulfill his family obligations. Scott's life story suggests that the "flight from domesticity" postulated by John Tosh may not tell the full truth about late-Victorian and Edwardian masculinity. This article uses Scott's case to reconsider the standard picture of British manliness during the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. It describes the influence of gender roles and ideologies on Scott's formative years, then examines representations of him in biographical literature. The combination of "masculine" and "feminine" traits in Scott's character intrigued his early biographers. In contrast, some later writers viewed him as effeminate and therefore unheroic. Their criticisms indicate that the ideal of "hard" manliness among imperial heroes may be a construction of the post-imperial age.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.069
Threshold uncertainty score0.138

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0110.011
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.011
GPT teacher head0.240
Teacher spread0.229 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations3
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of HistorySame topicPolar Research and EcologyFrench-language works237,207