Art Education in a Manly Environment: Educating the Sons of the Establishment in a 19th Century Boys' School
Bibliographic record
Abstract
There has been a widespread assumption in education “that male school-leavers were destined for the factory floor, the board room or the professions” (Griffin & Lees, 1997, p.5). To date more histories of 19th century art education have focused on those “destined for the factory floor” than on those who would join the Establishment. In contrast, this historical case study documents and comments upon art and design education in an élite school that prepared boys for the board room and the professions where there was, at times, an uneasy relationship between artistic pursuits and the construction of dominant forms of upper-class masculinity. Architecture, surveying, and later in the century, art appreciation and photography, found their places in the hegemonic masculinities that permeated both “official” and “hidden” curricula; whereas “ornamental drawing” was often seen as too feminine and contaminating, and “industrial” art education was reserved for those boys who were not in the classical stream. Consequently, in an élite all-boys' school, which sought to empower [students] through the curriculum, some forms of art were shunted to the sidelines, where, as in the 1850s, the arts were tacitly used, by some parents who paid an additional fee, to “tame” and “civilize” those who would enter the Establishment.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.025 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.001 |
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".