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 OpenAlexfundvenueno aff
Anuradha Gobin

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 XVIIe 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.

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)0.002
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 score0.970
Threshold uncertainty score0.060

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0070.028
Scholarly communication0.0050.003
Open science0.0010.004
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.000

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

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 venueRACAR Revue d art canadienneSame topicMedieval and Early Modern JusticeFrench-language works237,207