MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W237213414 · doi:10.3138/cjh.37.1.1

Suits Make the Man: Masculinity in Two English Law Courts, c.1500

2002· article· en· W237213414 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of History · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicHistorical Economic and Social Studies
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMasculinityLawFellSociologyHuman sexualityReputationIdentity (music)LivelihoodPolitical scienceGender studiesHistoryAesthetics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article argues that masculinity must be considered historically as an aspect of identity, made by individual men for themselves through a dynamic between pressures from the interior (self-perceptions and assessments) and the exterior (social prescriptions). For premodern Europe, we can most easily retrieve the individual self through its social imprint: the social self. Records from the courts of the Church (defamation suits) and of Chancery (petitions) show us that, for fifteenth-century Englishmen, the concerns which constituted reputation fell, in varying proportions, on both sides of the highly porous boundary between public and private worlds. Livelihood, family dealings, household governance, and sexuality all might play a role, sometimes in unexpected ways. This was true also of the clergy, a socially important minority of men. Legal records show us how crucially language served to mediate the equilibrium between individual and society in producing meanings of masculinity.

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.

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 categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.899
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

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)0.0010.000

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 head0.049
GPT teacher head0.214
Teacher spread0.165 · 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