MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1831617416 · doi:10.33137/rr.v35i1.19074

Seventeenth-Century Funeral Sermons and Exemplary Female Devotion: Gendered Spaces and Histories

2012· article· fr· W1831617416 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Femke Molekamp

Bibliographic record

VenueRenaissance and Reformation · 2012
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicHistorical Studies and Socio-cultural Analysis
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanitiesArtESPACE

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Les sermons de funérailles du XVIIe siècle, qui contiennent des eulogies pour des femmes décédées, peuvent être riches en détails et en constructions conceptuelles éclairant la vie dévotionnelle des femmes des débuts de la modernité. Cet article explore dans une sélection de ces eulogies les différentes représentations de l’espace spécifiquement féminin de la lecture, de la méditation et de la prière. On y examine également l’utilisation, dans ces sermons, de récits de lutte sur leur lit de mort contre Satan, afin de décrire une version féminine des dernières heures de la vie et de la lutte pour vaincre les tentations diaboliques. On y démontre que l’espace intime et le lit de mort féminins sont construits dans ces textes de telle sorte qu’ils y apparaissent comme des espace fonctionnant comme des frontières entre les espaces public et privé et entre la chasteté et la sexualité. Cet article souligne également la tension présente dans ces eulogies entre l’expression du pouvoir féminin d’action sur le plan religieux, et l’établissement de limites et de principes exemplaires de spiritualité féminine.

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)0.001
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: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.016

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0070.015
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0000.003
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.000

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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.221
Teacher spread0.196 · 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
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations7
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRenaissance and ReformationSame topicHistorical Studies and Socio-cultural AnalysisFrench-language works237,207