Bibliographic record
Abstract
Independent scholarly writing on the Middle Ages began as a dignified amateur endeavour in, and in a few instances before, the eighteenth century, although a bemused reading public has often marvelled at why anyone with a superior education and leisure would bother. For this reason, amateur scholars have often felt it necessary to justify their choice of a scholarly pursuit, and this continues down to our own day. Women scholars like Margaret Wade Labarge (1916-2009), whom we celebrate here, often had little choice but to pursue their scholarly interests independently because in her day academic positions were largely awarded to men. Labarge justified her career choice straightforwardly as based on a lifelong interest in the Middle Ages. Despite sporadic appointments as visiting scholar at Carleton University and the University of Ottawa, Margaret Wade Labarge spent her career primarily in research and writing, and she chose to view her status on the periphery of academic institutions positively since it left her free to study and write what she wished. She chose her scholarly projects herself, pursued them independently, and found publishers willing to place her work before the public: as a result, she enjoyed some commercial success and, with it, stature within her chosen field of study. There are many reasons to celebrate Margaret Wade Labarge and place her among the women scholars who pursued similar independent careers in medieval studies and, in doing so, designed medieval women’s history in ways that resonate to the present day.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.012 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.016 | 0.002 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".