Poise under pressure: Eliteness, fashion, and the spatial perception of women in nineteenth-century Britain
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Every summer thousands of Britain’s elite upper class travelled to London’s West End to socialize and participate in the Season. During this time, elite women donned luxurious court gowns and went to St. James Palace to present themselves before Queen Victoria in Drawing Room ceremonies. One of these gowns, from 1863, survives today and offers an evocative glimpse of how elite women styled themselves for one of the most important ceremonies in their life. But, the West End was not just an elite neighbourhood. It also housed and employed middle and working-class Victorians with whom the elite did not always happily coexist. In 1861, peer and M.P. Sir Shelley allegedly flashed the public and his middle-class neighbours while a carriage procession for one of the Queen’s Drawing Room ceremonies passed below. The Times reported his trial, which featured contemptuous cross-examinations of several working-class women, and Sir Shelley’s triumphant victory. Two years later, several elite men submitted letters to the editor of The Times, complaining about the cramped and sometimes combative atmosphere of royal ceremonies, suggesting that they were not safe for women to attend. There is a gendered conflict in these sources. Those from elite feminine perspectives show the value in attending royal ceremonies, during which women could use their fashion and occupation of space to reinforce or manipulate their social status. The documents written from men’s points of view, however, show an attempted renegotiation of elite status by excluding the middle class and further limiting women’s access to elite spaces. My research questions where this conflict originated and how historians can utilize less traditional sources to bring feminine perspectives into areas of history in which male points of view have often dominated.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.011 | 0.016 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.000 |
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".