MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1555483134

Representing the Negative: Positing the Lesbian Void in Medieval English Anchoritism

2004· article· en· W1555483134 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Michelle M. Sauer

Bibliographic record

VenueThirdspace · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicMedieval Literature and History
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSolitudeThe VoidLesbianLiminalityPrayerContemplationServantMiddle EnglishSpace (punctuation)SociologyAestheticsGender studiesArtLiteraturePhilosophyTheologyEpistemologyEngineering
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The medieval vocation of included women who dedicated their whole lives to contemplative prayer by dwelling in small cells attached to churches. Ostensibly this provided complete solitude, yet in truth, the women lived in a liminal world of mediated solitude. The Rules for recluses all provided for the existence of at least one female servant who was also partially enclosed. The day-to-day contact with the outside world, the purchase of necessities, and the general upkeep of the household fell to them. Moreover, the anchoritic cell provided something that the majority of medieval households did not have - a private space. This space was specifically female, specifically female-controlled, and specifically eroticized. I suggest that in the early Middle Ages, the anchoritic cell provided the necessary space and conditions necessary to create a void, in which the anchoress could explore woman-woman erotic possibilities. This void was supported not only by the cell's configuration, but also through the religious Rule for anchoresses as well as by medieval theological concepts about lesbian acts. Thus, the two women - anchoress and maid - could create an interior society, presumably one in which class rules were somewhat suspended, and perhaps sexual rules as well.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.030

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0090.038
Scholarly communication0.0080.006
Open science0.0010.005
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.017
GPT teacher head0.227
Teacher spread0.210 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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".

Quick stats

Citations8
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThirdspaceSame topicMedieval Literature and HistoryFrench-language works237,207