Bibliographic record
Abstract
Believed to have begun with Han noble families, and eventually spreading to most classes of Chinese society, footbinding refers to the practice of restricting the foot's growth to maintain a small form and specific shape, and was practiced on Chinese girls from a young age until the twentieth century. When British missionaries began activity in China, they became concerned with footbinding and sought to eradicate the ancient traditional practice. Examining the work of both orthodox and revisionist historians alongside primary texts written by missionaries in the nineteenth century, this paper studies why missionaries objected to footbinding and how the anti-footbinding movement gained traction in China. Ultimately, British missionaries misinterpreted the cultural meaning of footbinding, and their methods of eradicating the practice reflected this misunderstanding. Missionaries saw footbinding as patriarchal, regressive, and sexually perverse; in reality, footbinding's meaning was connected to nationalism and ethnic identity. Therefore, when Chinese activists began to perpetuate anti-footbinding propaganda, they nationalized anti-footbinding discourse, seeking to remove British influence from the movement. The paper is concerned with how missionary condemnation of footbinding constituted cultural imperialism, and why this process was successful in missionary activity in the late Qing period (the latter half of the nineteenth century and early twentieth century).
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.011 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 0.002 |
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".