MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2339598461 · doi:10.3167/hrrh.2016.420101

Gender and Status in the Medieval World

2016· article· en· W2339598461 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Katherine Weikert, Elena Woodacre

Bibliographic record

VenueHistorical Reflections/Réflexions Historiques · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicReformation and Early Modern Christianity
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHistory

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

I n January 2014, the University of Winchester hosted the Gender and Me- dieval Studies conference.Held sporadically since the late 1980s and, for the most part, annually in the last fi fteen years, the conference series is dedicated to the study of gender in the Middle Ages.In 2014 at Winchester, the topic for discussion was "gender and status."This topic was specifi cally chosen for the potential fruitfulness of the idea: gender and status could encompass ideas such as social status, employment, fi gures of authority, marital status, legal issues, and could potentially suit any academic discipline or geographic context.The 2014 conference welcomed more than ninety scholars from throughout Europe and North America speaking on topics ranging from medieval gynecology 1 to clerical masculinity.2 As the conference organizers noted, the large number of scholars attending and speaking on gender and status in the medieval world might indicate larger trends in medieval scholarship: that studying gender in the medieval world was no longer a niche subject, but part of the wider landscape of not just medieval studies but scholarship in general.3 The study of gender has indeed come a long way since its earliest inceptions in the academy and Joan Scott's appeal for scholars to consider gender as "a useful category of historical analysis."4 Growing initially from second-wave feminism's critique of the academy and the call to recognize women's place not only in academia but in history overall, gender studies in turn grew from third-wave feminism's recognition of the value of difference with "an inclusive and non-judgmental approach that refuses to police the boundaries of the feminist political."5 Indeed, it is only in a few farfl ung corners where gender studies in history are still considered as an "addwomen-and-stir" approach.Instead there is a much greater understanding that gender as a social construct-and a normative construct at that 6 -can affect all corners of life.As another structure around which we build society,

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)0.001
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: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.017
Threshold uncertainty score0.033

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0080.019
Scholarly communication0.0060.004
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.000

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 head0.092
GPT teacher head0.295
Teacher spread0.203 · 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 designQualitative
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

Citations5
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractno

Explore more

Same venueHistorical Reflections/Réflexions HistoriquesSame topicReformation and Early Modern ChristianityFrench-language works237,207