Bibliographic record
Abstract
Benefit of clergy and benefit of the belly are often assumed to be largely analogous practices; they were gender specific, but both saved convicts from the gallows. Benefit of clergy did not serve to protect female convicts in the Tudor period. Judges and members of parliament had willingly extended the fiction of clerical status to almost any man, but not to women. In 1624, parliament allowed women to claim the privilege, but only for theft of goods worth 10s or less. From then until the full extension of the benefit of clergy to women in 1693, their inability to claim this privilege on the same terms as men demonstrated an even more obvious bias on the part of lawmakers. Until 1693, women had to rely on their ability to bear children rather than their ability to read in order to stall an execution. In Elizabeth's reign, just under 25 percent of the women convicted at the Essex assizes successfully postponed their executions through a plea of pregnancy. In the other counties of the Home Circuit, somewhat higher percentages prevailed, with Surrey having the highest proportion of female convicts – just over 60 percent – earning a respite from death. In all, 224, or 41 percent, of the women convicted on the Home Circuit successfully pleaded pregnancy. This would seem to compare quite favorably with the 48.6 percent of male convicts who obtained benefit of clergy. Benefit of clergy and benefit of the belly were not, however, analogous 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 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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.024 | 0.003 |
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".