Bibliographic record
Abstract
In her early twenties, Eliza Orme decided to enter the legal profession, enlisting the help of Helen Taylor, the stepdaughter and assistant of John Stuart Mill. Orme’s award-winning performance in her university courses attracted the attention of other mentors, some of whom tried to help her secure a position, not in one of the Inns of Court (which remained unthinkable) but by working as a junior in a barrister’s chambers. That was unsuccessful. Later, guided by another mentor, she established her own chambers in Chancery Lane, the legal district, and began working there with Mary Ellen Richardson. They were conveyancers and patent agents, and both were directors of the Nineteenth-Century Building Society (an organization for financing real estate transactions). Some of their legal work was legitimate because unregulated, while the more lucrative, regulated, opportunities came about when senior barristers paid for Orme and her associates to prepare legal documents which would appear under the official (male) signature. In an enthusiastic letter to Taylor, Orme described their chambers as ‘a miniature Girton’. There is evidence of discrimination and challenges, including a fellow-student who sought to appropriate a scholarship she had earned and a newspaper column speculating on the matrimonial ambitions of someone who had led her class in Roman Law. To counter this, Howsam offers a letter from an American woman lawyer describing Eliza Orme and Reina Emily Lawrence working together in a busy, well-appointed office: ‘a fine chaos’. Orme persisted through the challenges and prospered, along with Richardson, Lawrence and other women colleagues. The chapter ends with Leslie Howsam’s informed speculations about the level of Orme’s commitment to legal practice—was that the extent of her ambition, or was it a step on the way to exercising her passionate interest in contemporary politics?
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.015 | 0.004 |
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; both teacher heads 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".