MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2047616113 · doi:10.1353/lm.2003.0009

Contagion and Blame in Early Modern England: The Case of the French Pox

2003· article· en· W2047616113 on OpenAlexaff
Louis F. Qualtiere, William W. E. Slights

Bibliographic record

VenueLiterature and medicine · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicGothic Literature and Media Analysis
Canadian institutionsRoyal University Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBlamePunitive damagesHistoryInterpretation (philosophy)CriminologySociologyLawClassicsPsychologyPolitical sciencePsychiatryPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

During the first century of its epidemic spread through Europe, the venereal disease called Morbus Gallicus or the French pox occasioned a major shift in the cultural interpretation of contagion. This change can be traced in medical and literary texts dating from roughly 1530 to 1630. As a sexually transmitted disease that threatened the social fabric of Europe, the pox elicited deep medical concern and strong moral condemnation from secular and religious authorities. Throughout the sixteenth century this disfiguring and disabling disease was said to be the result of God's wrath, but by the start of the seventeenth century another, quite different construction of the origin and spread of the pox came to share the stage with the punitive, providentialist explanation. Satiric literature such as Shakespeare's Timon of Athens shifted the focus squarely onto the role of the individual human agent in spreading the pox and so expanded the ethical discourse of contagion far beyond obeisance to God and blaming the victim.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
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 score0.282
Threshold uncertainty score0.560

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0300.026
Scholarly communication0.0100.006
Open science0.0010.004
Research integrity0.0110.006
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.001

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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.260
Teacher spread0.253 · 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

Citations23
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueLiterature and medicineSame topicGothic Literature and Media AnalysisFrench-language works237,207