MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2102760448 · doi:10.1258/jrsm.97.1.37

Child adoption in the seventeenth century: vignettes from Defoe and Pepys

2003· article· en· W2102760448 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
A N Williams

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of the Royal Society of Medicine · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicHistorical Studies on Reproduction, Gender, Health, and Societal Changes
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsParliamentQuarter (Canadian coin)MedicineHistoryPediatricsClassicsLawPoliticsPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In the seventeenth century, between a quarter and one-third of children died in the first year of life and only half reached the age of fifteen. Children born out of wedlock were at even higher risk, partly through infanticide. Indeed, in 1624 Parliament passed an Act ‘to prevent the murthering of bastard children’.2 Many were consigned to the care of a parish, which resented the burden and neglected them. Others went to paid carers; there was no formal system for child adoption, and a mother often made secret arrangements to have the child taken off her hands. In this article I draw attention to two vignettes from the writings of Daniel Defoe (1661–1731) and Samuel Pepys (1633–1703).

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 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 score0.475
Threshold uncertainty score0.312

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 studies0.0000.000
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 head0.030
GPT teacher head0.238
Teacher spread0.207 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations2
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of the Royal Society of MedicineSame topicHistorical Studies on Reproduction, Gender, Health, and Societal ChangesFrench-language works237,207