Women, Work and Sociability in Early Modern London, by Tim Reinke-Williams
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The lives of the labouring poor and middling sort—and particularly those of the women of these classes—are notoriously difficult for historians of the early modern period to uncover. In his book, Tim Reinke-Williams acknowledges this, but does not allow it to deter him from producing a thorough and engaging study that outlines ‘how women of the middling sort and labouring poor in sixteenth- and seventeenth-century London could acquire credit and gain honest reputations through their work and sociability’ (p. 1). In this, Reinke-Williams engages with recent debates over whether the reputations of early modern women were formed based on sexual reputation (as scholars such as Laura Gowing and Keith Thomas have argued), or whether their reputations were judged on a broader range of criteria. Using a wide variety of sources, including court records, conduct books, ballads, diaries and plays, Reinke-Williams explores how women from the lower and middle ranks of London society were treated as a result of their behaviours between 1550 and 1700. The discussion such an approach allows is wide ranging, and this is reflected in the chapters that make up the book, which explore paid and unpaid work and the many social activities that could contribute to a woman’s reputation.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".