MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1991936535 · doi:10.4000/chs.293

The Abolition of the Burning of Women in England Reconsidered1

2005· article· en· W1991936535 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueCrime Histoire et Sociétés · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicHistorical Studies on Reproduction, Gender, Health, and Societal Changes
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Victoria
Fundersnot available
KeywordsParliamentNothingCapital punishmentIdealizationPunishment (psychology)Capital (architecture)LawPolitical scienceSociologyCriminologyHistoryPsychologySocial psychologyArchaeologyPolitics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article argues that, while it is undoubtedly the case that self-consciously enlightened attitudes towards punishment, as well as increasingly idealized conceptions of womanhood, established the context for the abolition of the burning of women in England, these socio-cultural developments were decisively abetted by practical circumstances and principally advocated by a group of men -the sheriffs of London and Middlesex -whose appearance in the vanguard of reform may come as a surprise. The first part of this paper reviews the evidence that may be invoked to argue for the role of changing social and cultural imperatives, suggesting some of the difficulties (and even contradictions) that emerge from a closer reading of the evidence. The second section argues the centrality of hitherto neglected features of the story: the particular objections of the sheriffs charged with enforcing the criminal law;

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.931
Threshold uncertainty score0.757

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.107
GPT teacher head0.337
Teacher spread0.230 · 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