A Paris of Their Own: Guidebooks for Anglo-American Female Travellers and the Rewriting of Mainstream Travel Culture
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Both E. M. Forster’s A Room with a View (1908) and Charles Dickens’s Little Dorrit (1855–1857) satirize British guidebook users, depicting them as mindless followers rather than as individual explorers of foreign landscapes. Series by John Murray and Baedeker dominated the landscape of Victorian travel, and scholars have pointed out that while mainstream guidebooks made foreign tourism more accessible for the middle class, they also presented travel as a heavily prescriptive and systematic endeavour, one that often sheltered British travellers from an encounter with foreignness. This article extends our understanding of the Victorian guidebook’s legacy by examining three Anglo-American guidebooks for women travelling to Paris – Mary Abbot’s A Woman’s Paris (1900), Elizabeth Otis Williams’ Sojourning, Shopping, and Studying in Paris (1907), and Alice M. Ivimy’s A Woman’s Guide to Paris (1909). It suggests that these fin-de-siècle women’s guidebooks emerged as a critique both of mainstream guidebooks’ prescriptive approach to foreign travel and of the narrow interests to which they catered. This article shows how, in actively resisting the genre’s emphasis on uniformity and expediency, guidebooks for women instead privileged spontaneous discovery, personal interest, and an encounter with the Parisian culture and landscape. In doing so, it seeks to reformulate our understanding of women’s travel narratives and of the cultural legacy of Victorian guidebooks.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.012 | 0.014 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".