MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2799862112 · doi:10.3138/cbmh.214-082017

The Healing Arts and Social Capital: The Paston Women of Fifteenth-Century England

2018· article· en· W2799862112 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Ashlee Barwell

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Health History · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicHistorical Studies on Reproduction, Gender, Health, and Societal Changes
Canadian institutionsYork University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGentryObligationSocial capitalGratitudeThe artsCapital (architecture)Health carePower (physics)SociologyGender studiesPolitical scienceHistoryLawMedicinePsychologyAncient historySocial psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In late-medieval England, women's informal and gratis healthcare services helped them to accumulate and recompense social capital, which improved their families' and their own status and resources. Given the precariousness of health, special skills in the healing arts had a particular power to create a sense of gratitude and obligation. Evidence comes from the 15th-century letter collection of the Pastons, an ambitious gentry family from Norfolk. The Paston women appear both performing as healers in their kin networks and sending medical recipes and advice to their male and female relatives. Furthermore, seeking patronage at court, male relatives solicited medical secrets from the Paston women to pass along to their betters in an effort to advance their social status. This article argues that healthcare was a distinctly feminine form of participation in the Paston family's quest for social capital.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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 score0.139
Threshold uncertainty score0.277

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0160.022
Scholarly communication0.0050.003
Open science0.0010.005
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.000

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 head0.063
GPT teacher head0.243
Teacher spread0.180 · 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

Citations1
Published2018
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Health HistorySame topicHistorical Studies on Reproduction, Gender, Health, and Societal ChangesFrench-language works237,207