MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2068216418 · doi:10.1111/1477-4658.t01-1-00017

<i>Mothers, sisters, and daughters: girls and conservatory guardianship in late Renaissance Florence</i><sup>1</sup>

2003· article· en· W2068216418 on OpenAlex
Nicholas Terpstra

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

VenueRenaissance Studies · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicHistorical Economic and Social Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLegal guardianVirginity testHonourGender studiesPoliticsAdministration (probate law)HistoryStyle (visual arts)The RenaissanceSociologyPolitical scienceLawArt historyArchaeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

From 1540 to 1591, Florentines established six shelters for orphaned and abandoned girls. These came to be called ‘conservatories’ in light of their aim of conserving the girls’ virginity and honour, and were distinct from orphanages, which were reserved for needy boys. Conservatories run by men were mandated by the state and operated on the model of local hospitals. Those run by women originated in the religious and charitable drive of a group, and initially operated on the model of widows’ communities, without a formal organizational structure. Women had a distinct style of governance, but it did not outlast the generation of founders. Political and ecclesiastical forces turned one of the women's communities into a more formally organized conservatory under male administration and turned the other two into convents. (pp. 201–229)

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 categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.739
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
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 head0.061
GPT teacher head0.246
Teacher spread0.185 · 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