Bibliographic record
Abstract
The closing chapter draws together the threads of evidence in the context of Leslie Howsam’s memories of a prolonged investigation and her informed speculation about Eliza Orme’s ambitions. It describes Howsam’s return, after retirement and during the Covid pandemic, to the study of Orme in the dual context of a transformed (digital) research environment and a renewed academic interest in women’s professional lives. One such thread is ‘Loyalty, logic, and strategy: the case of Charles Dilke’s divorce scandal’, where the strong circumstantial evidence of Orme’s professional involvement is discussed. Another is ‘Speculation: Eliza’s thwarted ambition’ which adduces the argument that Orme might have been aiming for election as part of the first cohort of women members of Parliament. Turning to the questions of identity that have framed the book as a whole, the following sections ask: ‘Who was Eliza to her friends and family?’, ‘Who was Miss Orme to lawyers (then and now)?’ and ‘Who was she to posterity?’. The chapter concludes that Eliza Orme was an independent single professional woman in public life; she described herself as ‘hopelessly practical’ while aiming to do first one, and then another unthinkable job for a woman of her time, initially to be a lawyer, and perhaps also to be a politician, on equal terms with men.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.114 | 0.005 |
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".