MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2145226536 · doi:10.33137/rr.v27i3.11803

Redeeming Eve. Women Writers of the English Renaissance

2009· article· en· W2145226536 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Elaine V. Beilin, Joyce T. Forbes

Bibliographic record

VenueRenaissance and Reformation · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicScottish History and National Identity
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsThe RenaissanceArtLiteratureHistoryArt history

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In a finely crafted work Elaine V. Beilin undertakes, through this first in depth study of thirty women writers of the English Renaissance, her colossal task of Redeeming Eve (Princeton University Press, 1987).Two 1930s doctoral studies had concluded that as a group, women writers of the English Renaissance "form an early modern tradition of women's writing" (xvi).Building upon this pioneering scholarship, Beilin adds a new dimension in her investigation into how these women were influenced by the social and literary attitudes of the time.She concludes that there

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)0.002
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: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.024

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0060.005
Scholarly communication0.0040.003
Open science0.0000.002
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.001

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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.208
Teacher spread0.193 · 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

Citations149
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRenaissance and ReformationSame topicScottish History and National IdentityFrench-language works237,207