Philip Grace. <i>Affectionate Authorities: Fathers and Fatherly Roles in Late Medieval Basel</i> .
Bibliographic record
Abstract
For the past decade, scholars of all periods and places have begun to attend to the question of men and masculinity in their gendered specificity. During the course of this project, historians have availed themselves of the theories and methodologies that have emerged from the more mature historical study of women, carefully assessing men’s social roles and the opportunities and constraints provided in patriarchal societies. Affectionate Authorities: Fathers and Fatherly Roles in Late Medieval Basel balances early studies of motherhood in medieval society. Rather than attempting to survey the whole of the medieval world, Philip Grace presents a monograph that focuses narrowly and deeply on Basel around 1500. Grace consults a wide body of sources, including court records, especially those pertaining to marriage and inheritance cases, literature, pedagogical treatises, and letters. These supply him with the vignettes and examples that enliven the pages, and many people and families move across the chapters, lending them unity and coherence. Taken together, the sources provide an ideological foundation for fatherly activity and its expectations, as well as evidence for how these ideas played out in lived reality, both within the community of Basel and in individual families. Thus, the book strikes a nice balance between theory and practice, set against a single well-examined social context. This is the backdrop against which Grace examines his fundamental research question about the resonance of the metaphor of fatherhood and why medieval Europeans deployed it in so many different contexts. To address this, he interrogates the multiple qualities that accrued to fathers and imbued the metaphors of fatherhood found in Basel and elsewhere in late medieval society.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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.
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".