“We Must Give the Modern Girl a Training in Citizenship”
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Preparing Girls for Political and Social ServiceThe 1925 annual report of the British Guide Association, which featured information and membership numbers from around the world, also included an essay entitled "Why I Believe in the Girl Guides" by C. Grant Robinson, a historian from the University of Birmingham.Acknowledging both the recent extension of the British franchise to most women over the age of thirty and the likelihood that it would soon be extended still further, Robinson claimed that these changes had put the average British girl "on terms of equality with a boy" -a shift that he, like many of his contemporaries, saw as nothing short of "a revolution." 1 Similar "revolutionary" electoral changes had in fact been taking place in a piecemeal and incomplete way around the world since the late nineteenth century; Canadian women (with some significant racialized exceptions) received the federal vote in 1918, and the Government of India Act of 1935 would soon enfranchise some women there (again, with exceptions) on the same terms as men.Throughout the 1920s and 1930s, Guide leaders across the British Empire sought to position themselves and their growing youth movement at the centre of these exciting political developments.On the one hand, they wanted to claim and celebrate the range of new possibilities that was opening up for young women; on the other hand, many also believed that Guiding was needed to train and contain these newly enfranchised and, it was feared, socially irresponsible flappers and modern girls.While continuing to insist on the importance of motherhood, domesticity, and marriage, Baden-Powell -like many of his contemporaries -saw 1918 as
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 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.011 | 0.017 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.011 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.018 | 0.009 |
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".