MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2959548984 · doi:10.3138/ecf.31.4.705

From Unnatural Fanatics to “Fair Quakers”: How English Mainstream Culture Transformed Women Friends between 1650 and 1740

2019· article· en· W2959548984 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Ana M. Acosta

Bibliographic record

VenueEighteenth-Century Fiction · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicReligion, Gender, and Enlightenment
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMainstreamClothingMeaning (existential)Ideal (ethics)Consumption (sociology)SociologyAestheticsGender studiesHistoryLawSocial scienceArtPolitical sciencePhilosophyEpistemology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Quaker women’s plain clothing acquired a special significance in the eighteenth century. This article examines its meaning through an analysis of various kinds of cultural products, including plays, periodicals such as the Spectator, and novels such as Samuel Richardson’s Pamela (1740). It also addresses writings on the question of appropriate attire by Quaker authors. Women Friends’ sartorial choices became a parameter from which to measure the specific kind of cultural shifts that occurred generally in eighteenth-century English society regarding gendered prescriptions for women’s conduct and patterns of consumption. These changes are chronicled from the early stages of the movement in the last decades of the seventeenth century through the early decades of the eighteenth century, when Quakerism developed into an established denomination. The acceptance and eventual desirability of Quaker women as spouses, illustrates the ways in which English society began to codify and establish ideal wifely behaviour.

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)0.003
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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.063
Threshold uncertainty score0.125

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0120.014
Scholarly communication0.0050.005
Open science0.0010.003
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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.202
Teacher spread0.191 · 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

Citations0
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEighteenth-Century FictionSame topicReligion, Gender, and EnlightenmentFrench-language works237,207