MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1981885154 · doi:10.1163/157006511x565521

Syphilis, Sex, and Marriage in Early Modern Spain

2011· article· en· W1981885154 on OpenAlexaff
Cristian Berco

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Early Modern History · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicHistorical Studies on Reproduction, Gender, Health, and Societal Changes
Canadian institutionsBishop's University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHuman sexualityContext (archaeology)SyphilisScholarshipAmbivalenceSocioeconomic statusGender studiesDiseaseAffect (linguistics)MedicinePsychologySociologyHistoryDemographySocial psychologyPolitical scienceFamily medicinePopulationLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Although scholarship on the early modern syphilis epidemic has greatly increased our understanding of the medical, institutional, and individual responses to this illness, little is known about patients’ familial and personal lives beyond the hospital walls. Examining patients treated at Toledo’s Hospital de Santiago in the mid-seventeenth century, this article analyzes their attitudes towards sexuality and marriage as they lived with chronic venereal disease. Produced in a post-Tridentine context that ideally emphasized individual control of sexual sin, the hospital and notarial records patients left behind reveal ambivalence towards sexuality and marriage. Not only did competing messages on sexuality affect patients who displayed expressive sexual lives under specific circumstances, but only those who engaged communal networks, socioeconomic position, and medical assumptions on sexuality and disease successfully managed to marry.

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)0.001
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 score0.031
Threshold uncertainty score0.062

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.004
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.098
GPT teacher head0.231
Teacher spread0.133 · 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
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Early Modern HistorySame topicHistorical Studies on Reproduction, Gender, Health, and Societal ChangesFrench-language works237,207