MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2530028515 · doi:10.33137/rr.v33i4.15972

The Death of the Fifth Earl of Derby: Cunning Folk and Medicine in Early Modern England

2011· article· fr· W2530028515 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Judith Bonzol

Bibliographic record

VenueRenaissance and Reformation · 2011
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicHistorical Studies and Socio-cultural Analysis
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanitiesArtPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Les devins ont joué un rôle indispensable dans le diagnostique et la guérison de maladies d’origine diabolique dans les communautés anglaises des débuts de la modernité. Malgré les tentatives du clergé de les faire passer pour les agents du Diable, leur popularité est restée intacte. Les solutions proposées par l’église Protestante — la prière, le jeune et la piété — se sont avérés impuissantes face à la multitude d’afflictions étranges et déconcertantes infestant la campagne anglaise. Bien que les diagnostiques de ces personnes rusées ont parfois conduit à des accusations de sorcellerie, leur pratique s’est souvent avérée préférable aux traitements invasifs et radicaux appliqués par les médecins gradués de l’université. La croyance populaire dans la capacité magique de guérison des devins était en partie favorisée par leur soutien par les élites. L’examen détaillé de la maladie soudaine et de la mort en 1594 de Ferdinando Stanley, cinquième comte de Derby, montre que l’emploi de ces intervenants n’était pas une pratique limitée aux pauvres et aux ignorants, et explore la nature des relations entre la médecine contrôlée par l’université et ce type de pratique.

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)0.003
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 score0.378
Threshold uncertainty score0.753

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0140.012
Scholarly communication0.0030.003
Open science0.0010.005
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.000

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 head0.031
GPT teacher head0.219
Teacher spread0.188 · 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

Citations0
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRenaissance and Reformation→Same topicHistorical Studies and Socio-cultural Analysis→French-language works237,207→