Bibliographic record
Abstract
Awfully Devoted Women began life as an exploration of lesbian and bisexual women's subjectivity in English Canada before second-wave feminism.As so often happens, it was prompted by questions arising from a single source.A set of letters and journals of a British Columbia woman, Constance Grey Swartz, led me to wonder about same-sex relationships between women in Canada before the 1970s.I realized that in my reading of lesbian history, I had come across very little on lesbians in Canada and almost nothing on Canadian lesbians before second-wave feminism.It was 1993 and Canadian lesbian and gay history was an emerging but still small field.Now, we have much more scholarship to draw upon, yet we still know relatively little about relationships between women in Canada prior to 1965.My hope is that this book helps to fill that gap.Many people have shared their expertise and advice during the writing of this book.I would like to thank Lynne Marks, Angus McLaren, Elizabeth Vibert, Aaron Devor and Leila Rupp for their advice during and since the writing of the book and for their enthusiasm generally for the history of sexuality.Each provided crucial feedback and challenged and inspired me to think more carefully and critically, and I am a better scholar for their efforts.The University of Victoria provided fellowship funding for my research, and my time teaching courses there in the history and sociology of gender and sexuality has afforded me the opportunity to do further work in this exciting field.I am grateful to the students in those courses and to colleagues and students at the University of Otago in New Zealand for their engagement with debates in the history of sexuality and for inspiring me during the writing process.
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 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.379 | 0.202 |
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; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.
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".