Imperial Footprints: Lady Aberdeen and Lady Dufferin in Ireland, Canada and India, 1870-1914
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This thesis focuses on Lady Ishbel Aberdeen (1857-1939) and Lady Hariot Dufferin (1843-1936) who accompanied their husbands, who were Colonial Governors, into the British Empire. I argue that their footprints were indelibly etched on the colonial landscape; that each woman left her mark on the places where she lived. Officially these women promoted the British Empire through their positions as 'first ladies'. They willingly accepted this as a duty to their husbands and the Crown: an unwritten contract. However the unofficial cultural and discursive work of Empire that they undertook was perhaps less obvious but just as far reaching. It was undoubtedly political in nature yet it was not thought of in that way. The twin themes of representation and identity are explored on each colonial site. I argue that Lady Aberdeen and Lady Dufferin constructed representations that placed colonised others in an inferior position, whilst enabling the women to bolster their own identities as British imperialists. From their privileged positions they promoted Britain, the British Empire, and Christianity. They were both involved in Ireland, where they had different views on Home Rule, and Canada, where they each lived for several years. Between them they started organisations to benefit health in Canada, Ireland and India. These points in common allow comparisons to be made, although this is not the main focus of the thesis. I use a combination of post-structural and traditional methodology, with much of the research based on the Dufferin and Aberdeen private papers. Secondary themes explored include the nature of Britain's relationship to Ireland, Ulsterwomen's efforts to prevent Home Rule, and attitudes to health and disease.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.029 | 0.011 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".