MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2891625977 · doi:10.7202/1050817ar

Picturing Liminal Spaces and Bodies: Rituals of Punishment and the Limits of Control at the Gallows Field

2018· article· fr· W2891625977 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.
venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueRACAR Revue d art canadienne · 2018
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicMedieval and Early Modern Justice
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersSocial Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada
KeywordsHumanitiesArtEthnologyPolitical scienceSociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Cet article se penche sur un ensemble d’images de corps châtiés dans le paysage hollandais afin d’explorer le rôle de l’espace dans les conceptions de criminalité et d’identité au cours du XVII e siècle. À cette époque, les cadavres de certains criminels, exécutés pour des crimes exceptionnellement graves, étaient déplacés sur les sites de pendaison, situés au-delà des murs de la ville. Étant donné la présence de restes humains en décomposition, il est frappant que la périphérie des villes attirât les membres du public en grand nombre. Les gens se réunissaient pour voir cette manifestation de pouvoir autoritaire sur les actes criminels, mais aussi pour s’amuser et profiter d’activités de loisir avec leur famille, leurs amis et des étrangers. Cet article examine les représentations de gibets afin d’interroger comment les activités non autorisées se déroulant sur ces sites pouvaient négocier ou transformer l’identité civique dans la République hollandaise.

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.

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)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.864
Threshold uncertainty score0.966

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.247
Teacher spread0.226 · 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