The Dichotomy of Intimate Garments: Women’s Stays and Pockets in Georgian Britain
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In John Collet’s 1777 print, Tight Lacing, or Fashion Before Ease a woman is depicted holding onto a bed poster as her maid and husband strain to tighten the lacing on her stays. Meanwhile, a large tie-on pocket can be seen hanging from the woman’s waist. Although they were worn closely together on the female body stays and pockets have been studied independently from each other. This is understandable, as at first glance, they appear incomparable. Stays were the precursor to nineteenth century corsets and they moulded the body into the desired and fashionable shape. Pockets on the other hand were utilitarian bags meant for carrying necessary items; separate from women’s clothing they were tied around the waist with string and were hidden under the skirts. Despite the initial differences, these garments did not function independently from each other. Using caricatures, etiquette books, and physical examples found in museum collections, this study demonstrates that when examined in tandem it becomes apparent that stays and pockets served distinct, yet overlapping functions in women’s lives. They informed women’s relationships with their surrounding environments, strengthened women’s connection to the domestic realm, yet also gave women freedom to move outside the home and participate within the public sphere. Furthermore, both items also acted as private spaces, which allowed women to actively partake in romantic courtship and sexual flirtations in a gender appropriate way. By juxtaposing stays and pockets this study contributes to the growing historical discussion surrounding these items, but also begins to piece together a larger picture of the role undergarments, as a whole, played in women’s lives.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.012 | 0.019 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".