MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1984247608 · doi:10.7202/031082ar

Images of Women in the Sermons of Guillaume Pepin (c.1465-1533)

2006· article· en· W1984247608 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Larissa Juliet Taylor

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of the Canadian Historical Association · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicReformation and Early Modern Christianity
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSermonStereotype (UML)CompassionSympathyOrthodoxyCategorizationPeriod (music)Order (exchange)PsychologyLiteratureHistorySocial psychologyPhilosophyTheologyArtAestheticsEpistemology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The stereotype of the misogynistic medieval churchman persists in almost all scholarly assessments of gender attitudes and beliefs in the premodern period. Such sweeping generalizations do little to help us understand attitudes in one particular time and place, or changes over time; studies of individuals allow a more nuanced and richer understanding of male beliefs about women. Sermons in the late Middle Ages exhibit the full range of attitudes about women. In the sermons of Guillaume Pépin (c. 1465-1533), we find the preaching of a man who did not categorize women as the personification of Good or Evil, but talked at length about women and their problems in daily life with sympathy and compassion. The figures he evokes in his sermons are quite often strong, independent-minded women. Comparison with sermons in the mid-sixteenth century shows that many later preachers conform more closely to the stereotype, with the amount of attention given to women in sermons decreasing dramatically and negative descriptions predominating. Language is used much differently, and the resulting images of women are one-dimensional, with the female sex portrayed as subordinate, weak, and silly. These changes can be attributed to a number of factors, including the simplified sermon structure of the post Reformation period, the Reformation and misconceptions about the priesthood of all believers, the attempt to impose Catholic orthodoxy, and an increasing emphasis on the "natural order" of things.

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: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.013
Threshold uncertainty score0.027

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0120.005
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0000.002
Research integrity0.0020.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.013
GPT teacher head0.181
Teacher spread0.168 · 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 designQualitative
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

Citations0
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of the Canadian Historical AssociationSame topicReformation and Early Modern ChristianityFrench-language works237,207