Bibliographic record
Abstract
This chapter sets the context for Eliza Orme’s ambitions, in England from the 1860s to the 1890s, given that the extraordinary achievement of earning a degree in law was, as it happened, the easy part. She came of age into a burgeoning women’s suffrage movement whose leaders were committed to securing the electoral vote for women as well as access to a wide range of jobs and occupations; they also set their sights on the profession of medicine, but not that of law. The legal professions, encompassing both barristers and solicitors, were so totally closed to women that even the most ambitious suffragist and other feminist politicians did not consider them as institutions open to challenge. This meant that, whatever her contemporaries saw when they looked at Orme, they did not see her as we do today. When Leslie Howsam first encountered Orme in the 1980s, as a postgraduate student of British history in a Canadian university, she could discover very little information about this elusive figure. She had access to libraries and archives at home and in London, but there was no internet searching or digitized newspapers. Almost forty years later, newly available sources have made it possible to speculate that Eliza Orme’s ambition might have transcended even the practice of law, and reached as far as aiming for a seat in Parliament.
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 | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.032 | 0.001 |
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".