Tim Reinke-Williams. Women, Work and Sociability in Early Modern London.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Bernard Capp supervised the Ph.D. thesis upon which this monograph is based, and his influence is visible in its approach. Like Capp, Tim Reinke-Williams focuses on everyday life as a window into social relations and feminine identity in the period roughly encompassing 1550–1700. Unlike Keith Thomas and Laura Gowing's influential work demonstrating the centrality of sex to early modern women's reputation, Women, Work and Sociability in Early Modern London builds on shorter studies by scholars such as Garthine Walker, Martin Ingram, and Anthony Fletcher to argue that women were judged by a broader range of criteria. Feminine respectability could be derived from prowess in a variety of areas: motherhood, housewifery, domestic management, retailing, and sociability. These categories form the organizational structure for the book. The result is a very readable and compelling account of women's activities at home and abroad in the early modern metropolis. Though its insights are possibly not earth-shattering—the author himself states that the book's originality is in undertaking a full-length study of a topic that historians had previously only examined in shorter essays—it definitely breaks new ground in the final section on sociability. In addition to neighborliness and civility, Reinke-Williams discusses the diverse ways in which women “kept company” with other women and men. This included drinking in public houses and could involve rituals similar to those found in masculine culture. Reinke-Williams unearths references to women drinking to one another's health and to a woman ritually raising a mug to a man with whom she had quarreled earlier (pp. 146–147). While the author is careful to show the many ways in which alcoholic indulgence might damage a woman's reputation, he nonetheless offers significant insight into its potential to bond women to their companions in ways that resonate with male practices.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".