MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2915686011

Anxiety and Vulnerability: Women and Ritual Murder in Medieval Western Europe

2018· article· en· W2915686011 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Mary Andino

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Graduate History Review · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicMedieval Literature and History
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPower (physics)Gender studiesDebilitySociologyJudaismNarrativeSubject (documents)Rhetorical questionHistoryEthnologyCriminologyLiteratureArt
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

“Anxiety and Vulnerability” examines Christian ritual murder and host desecration accusations against Jews in medieval Europe. Analyzing several charges from diverse locations reveals trends in conceptualizations of women in religious discourse between the two groups. Previous studies of these accusations have acknowledged the presence and importance of female characters, but have not treated them as a subject of study in and of themselves. This paper moves female characters from the margins of ritual murder and host desecration charges to the forefront, arguing for the necessity of examining gender in understanding the rhetorical power of these influential narratives. Andino argues that Christians viewed women as the weak links in their struggle against Jews, reflecting anxiety over marginal women and their ability to fulfill their roles in Christian society. In Jewish accounts of these events, representations of women centered on their bodies as sites of Jewish debility and Christian aggression. Both Christians and Jews conceptualized the vulnerabilities of their communities in terms of female weakness. Through their shortcomings, women offered the religious Other a point of entry into the community, enabling and legitimizing the danger of the Other.

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 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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
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: Review · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.563
Threshold uncertainty score0.860

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.085
GPT teacher head0.259
Teacher spread0.174 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations0
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Graduate History ReviewSame topicMedieval Literature and HistoryFrench-language works237,207