MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2014630222 · doi:10.1093/shm/hks003

Leigh Whaley, Women and the Practice of Medical Care in Early Modern Europe, 1400-1800

2012· article· en· W2014630222 on OpenAlexaffabout
Lisa Smith

Bibliographic record

VenueSocial History of Medicine · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicHistorical Studies on Reproduction, Gender, Health, and Societal Changes
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Saskatchewan
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedical practiceClassicsArt historyHistoryMedicineFamily medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In Women and the Practice of Medical Care in Early Modern Europe Leigh Whaley examines ‘the roles performed by and the achievements of women medical practitioners’ (p. 2) in order ‘to explain why women were, for the most part, excluded from the practice of formal medicine’ (p. 3). Whaley has gathered an impressive amount of material from Italy, Spain, France and England, ranging from manuscript receipt books and medical licences to published treatises. Her book provides a fascinating overview of women's medical practices in the early modern period. Whaley argues that the main reasons for women's declining opportunities to practise medicine were increased regulation and professionalisation and contemporary medical, religious and legal ideas about women. Throughout, Whaley touches on the importance of the religious framework on the continent, from the vigorous piety of the Counter Reformation, to the activities of Islamic and Jewish women and the centrality of the Catholic Church to nursing; little attention, however, is given to the Protestant context. The book is organised thematically, with the first two chapters considering the medieval context and the growing regulation of medicine from the fourteenth century by the Church, state and universities that excluded women from educational opportunities and lucrative medical practices. Chapter 3 argues that women's exclusion was based on the medical, social and religious understanding about their minds and bodies. The fourth chapter examines examples of women whose innovative ideas and treatments became widely used by physicians and surgeons. In Chapters 5 to 8, Whaley focuses on women's medical practices as midwives, nurses, irregular practitioners and domestic practitioners. The final chapter explores the relationship between ideas about witches and the treatment of women healers and midwives. Despite the obstacles to women's medical practices, Whaley concludes that women ‘were able to overcome’ them using their ‘tenacity and creative strategies’ (p. 197).

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.997
Threshold uncertainty score0.115

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.005
Science and technology studies0.0030.006
Scholarly communication0.0050.010
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0060.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0340.004

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 head0.055
GPT teacher head0.283
Teacher spread0.228 · 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.

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

Citations1
Published2012
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSocial History of MedicineSame topicHistorical Studies on Reproduction, Gender, Health, and Societal ChangesFrench-language works237,207