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 OpenAlexaffvenue
Derek Neal

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.

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)0.004
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: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.134
Threshold uncertainty score0.267

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0260.009
Scholarly communication0.0060.003
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0040.005
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 head0.049
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

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

Citations19
Published2002
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of HistorySame topicHistorical Economic and Social StudiesFrench-language works237,207