Bibliographic record
Abstract
During the 19th century, the Religious Society of Friends, or Quakers, were among the religious groups of the time who made sure to “take care of their own,” by ensuring that sick, dependent, or disabled members of their congregations who came to their official attention were cared for. The Quaker process was heavily influenced by the book of discipline that each Yearly Meeting adopted as a set of rules for living for their members and that particularly described ways of dealing with the poor. This paper examines the Quakers of the early to mid-19th century, elements of the discipline of Indiana Yearly Meeting in particular, and examines the case of Samuel Price, who was supported as an “insane person” for 45 years. Use and interpretation of formal entries in the minutes of some parts of the Society of Friends in Indiana, in those days, is an important part of understanding what happened to Price, since the nature and extent of recording practices was deeply culturally embedded in the practices of Quakers who lived in a manner similar to that of Amish cultures in the 21st century. The paper touches on changes in the Midwestern culture that surrounded the Friends and how it affected them. Some indications of parallels for today are also examined.
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 | 0.013 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.027 | 0.097 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.013 | 0.012 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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 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".