Bibliographic record
Abstract
As an economic category, artisans are typically bounded by two historical markers: on one side, the rise of urban centers in the medieval period, and on the other side, the reorganization of commodity production as a result of industrial capitalization in the early modern period. As much as by their manufacturing and retailing work, premodern artisans may be recognized by specific social practices, such as guild membership, devotional associations, relations to community and nation, and distinctive gender organization. From the fourteenth to the seventeenth century, the period that witnessed artisans’ greatest influence, their identity was largely relational, defining itself from and against those who shared overlapping interests: merchants, waged laborers, and women. In addition, the premodern period saw important shifts in the epistemological status of “craft,” “art,” and “knowledge,” which began to create cultural divisions between artisan and artist, artisan and scientist. The essays in this volume explore artisan culture from a variety of perspectives, analyzing the representation of premodern artisans as distinctive cultural producers and considering artisans’ dynamic participation in the realms of literate, legal, and devotional culture.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".