Bibliographic record
Abstract
While many of the magazines discussed in this book are aimed at middle-class children, not all of them are. Working-class children were unquestionably part of the charitable public defined in certain magazines. While some of their giving is elided by the practice of aggregating collections, in other cases working-class children are explicitly identified as ideal charitable donors. This chapter examines another aspect of the Barnardo’s charity – the emigration of young people to Canada – to show how these emigrated children, the recipients of charity themselves, were encouraged to make financial contributions to assist others to emigrate. Barnardo’s Ups and Downs (1895–1914) is a Canadian magazine aimed in part at the British children who had been sent to Canada. It demonstrates how children, no matter their circumstances, were expected to help others. Letters and updates from these children appear regularly in the magazine, and they demonstrate the “rhetorical maneuvers” adopted by young people who understood their multiple subject positions as grateful charity recipients and beneficent charitable donors who understood their responsibilities to assist others. The young people’s participation in charitable giving in Ups and Downs reflects a sophisticated negotiation of their charitable subjectivities as both recipients and agents of charity.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.010 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.013 | 0.003 |
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".