MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2753323463 · doi:10.1080/0013838x.2017.1339988

Wifely ‘Affection and Disposition’: Brilliana Harley and Thomas Gataker’s<i>A Wife in Deed</i>(1623)

2017· article· en· W2753323463 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Diana G. Barnes

Bibliographic record

VenueEnglish Studies · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicHistorical Economic and Social Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWifeSermonDeedAffectionSiegeGloryHistoryLiteratureLawClassicsArtPhilosophyTheologyAncient historyPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The sermon Thomas Gataker gave at the wedding of Brilliana Conway and Sir Robert Harley in 1623 was published under the title A Wife in Deed (1623). Gataker defines marriage as an affective contract between two agents with responsibilities to one another, and offers practical and generic precepts for conduct. The dedication to Robert Harley honouring Brilliana Harley as a “mirror” of the ideal wife links those ideals, rhetorically at least, to the Harleys. Harley’s extensive extant correspondence (1625–44) allows us to consider the practical day-to-day significance of the sermon’s teachings. The essay reviews letters Harley wrote to her husband in the 1620s, early in the marriage; and in the 1640s, later in the marriage. Throughout she employs a deferential tone. During the 1640s, when civil war raged and her husband was absent, Harley governed the household, sheltered a godly community, and withstood a royalist siege justifying her position in terms of natural law. Gataker’s sermon provides a fresh lens upon the disjunction between the submissive rhetoric of Harley’s marital letters, and the stridency of her defence of Brampton Bryan.

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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.027
Threshold uncertainty score0.053

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0120.009
Scholarly communication0.0050.002
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0020.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.050
GPT teacher head0.255
Teacher spread0.205 · 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 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

Citations1
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEnglish StudiesSame topicHistorical Economic and Social StudiesFrench-language works237,207