Undergraduate Bodies: Women and Academic Citizenship in English Canada, 1875–1914
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In the nineteenth century, the cap and gown, like soldiers’ uniforms or the robes of lawyers, was perceived to be unfitting on a woman’s body. The right to wear the cap and gown was granted to young men when they matriculated as undergraduates, signifying that they were members of their university and holders of academic citizenship. The withholding of these rights cast women as inferior, and the denial of academic citizenship was premised on a discourse that normalized women’s inequality. Photographs offer opportunities not only to view actual bodies situated in a specific historical time and place, but also to explore the visual representation of cultural discourses and to search for moments of disruption and dissent. By producing and circulating images of their own bodies in academic dress, early university women in English Canada pushed back against the normative gendered discourses that excluded them from academic citizenship. Yet the discursive undergraduate body they constructed based their claims to university membership on their collective identity as white, Anglo-Canadian women. In this way, university women made adroit use of photography to portray white women in academic dress as images of youthful power and strength who were capable of assuming civic responsibility and poised to work toward the progress of the new dominion.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.014 | 0.014 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.000 |
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".