Bibliographic record
Abstract
This chapter positions women’s scholarship within the historiography of the eighteenth-century British country house and the architectural history of Canada, each corresponding to the centre and colonial-settler periphery of the British empire. In step with postcolonial and decolonisation strategies, the chapter articulates challenges to the hegemony of formalism and the Eurocentric canon. In the context of the country house, Dana Arnold’s early edited volumes put forward non-formalist approaches, including class, gender, and dissemination. These were joined by the work of several women from outside the discipline of architectural history – Amanda Vickery and Kate Retford amongst them – who, by exploring ‘soft’ concepts such as identity, home, domesticity, and tradition, deepened the consideration of the country house. The chapter then examines the tenacious grip of formalism in Canada, conditioned by Canada’s colonial legacy and reliance on the United States. With a few exceptions, this also kept women from the centre of academe, relegating them to the marginalised heritage sector. Yet, ironically, it was from there, with the focus on vernacular, non-Anglo, and Indigenous sites, that the study of architectural history began to shift, ultimately easing the way for multiple ways of knowing that now shape how we consider the built environment.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.016 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.016 | 0.002 |
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".