Bibliographic record
Abstract
This chapter considers the changes in charitable practices through children’s print. It examines the strategies deployed in children’s periodicals to create what the book describes as a “charitable public,” inspired by Lauren Berlant’s idea of “intimate publics.” These strategies were designed to introduce young readers to the specific cause and incorporate content that both extolled the cause and rewarded children’s engagement with it and included descriptions of children performing charity work, information about the charity, reports on monetary contributions, and other forms of engagement with young readers. Yet, despite these similarities, these materials also show how magazines responded to the changing expectations of their readers alongside some of the subtleties of the specific charitable causes. The British periodical Aunt Judy’s Magazine is set alongside other British, Canadian, Australian, and New Zealand examples to identify and explore specific magazine strategies designed to create a charitable public and promote a cause. These examples drew drew upon evolving ideas about children and childhood as well as new technologies while also demonstrating the centrality of print in the production of charitable publics that promoted a charitable ideal for children between 1840 and 1930.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 teacher head, 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".