MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2552985149 · doi:10.33137/rr.v35i1.19073

The Prisoner, the Lover, and the Poet: The Devonshire Manuscript and Early Tudor Carcerality

2012· article· fr· W2552985149 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Molly Murray

Bibliographic record

VenueRenaissance and Reformation · 2012
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicHistorical Economic and Social Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanitiesArtEthnologyHistory

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Les nombreux bouleversements de la culture politique des Tudors durant les années 1530 ont transformé les pratiques d'emprisonnement en Angleterre. Le développement rapide des lois sur la trahison par Henri VIII, joint à son désir de censurer et de contrôler son élite politique par des condamnations de nullité de droits civils (act of attainder), a envoyé un grand nombre de membres de la noblesse — hommes et femmes — dans les prisons de l’État anglais. Cet article se penche sur les cas de deux prisonniers nobles, Sir Thomas Howard et Lady Margaret Douglas, qui ont été incarcérés à la tour de Londres suite à leur mariage secret en 1536 et considéré comme politiquement indésirable. Pendant leur captivité, Thomas et Margaret ont composé et échangé plusieurs poèmes lyriques, maintenant conservés dans le manuscrit nommé le Devonshire Manuscript (British Library Additional Manuscript 17492). On montre dans cet article que, dans leur présentation matérielle, ces poèmes offrent un témoignage concret de la remarquable vie sociale présente dans la prison Tudor, et dans laquelle des hommes et des femmes interagissaient verbalement autant que par écrit. Le contenu de ces poèmes, ainsi que leur style, nous transmettent l’expression de leur amour, mais aussi des commentaires tranchants sur les pratiques carcérales innovantes d’Henri VIII.

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 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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.756
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.029
GPT teacher head0.215
Teacher spread0.186 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designNot applicable
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

Citations3
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRenaissance and ReformationSame topicHistorical Economic and Social StudiesFrench-language works237,207