“In the Empire She Loved So Well”
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In 1928, the Women’s Canadian Club of Victoria (WCCV) contracted N. De Bertrand Lugrin to write The Pioneer Women of Vancouver Island, one of the first feminist histories of British Columbia. Despite this distinction, the work has received relatively little scholarly attention, with its authorship frequently misattributed to other members of the Lugrin family. This article resituates the Club-sponsored book within the canon of Canadian women’s early historiography, using the Club’s archival records and Lugrin’s writings to argue that the WCCV sought to legitimize white settler women’s roles as nation-builders by infusing their historical actions with imperial importance. Memorializing dozens of stories of settler women, The Pioneer Women of Vancouver Island espoused certain qualities and values held by successful ‘pioneers’ that could inspire a contemporary generation to build a progressive future. Left out of this telling of the past (and the Club’s version of the future), however, were the mixed-race women who could threaten the constructed image of imperial unity. Almost a century after the WCCV’s publication, iterations on Lugrin’s mythologized ‘pioneer’ women theme continue to echo in histories of Vancouver Island. This discussion of the original book and its context reveals the theme’s origins within the intersection of feminism and imperialism in 1920s British Columbia.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.030 | 0.018 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.020 | 0.004 |
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".