MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3004904507 · doi:10.1080/03071022.2020.1694772

Sanctioned and illicit support networks at the margins of a Scottish town in the early seventeenth century

2020· article· en· W3004904507 on OpenAlexaff
Alice Glaze

Bibliographic record

VenueSocial History · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicHistorical Economic and Social Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Guelph
Fundersnot available
KeywordsReputationPillarSmall townPolitical scienceDisciplinePoor reliefCriminologyLawPublic administrationSociologySocioeconomicsEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article examines women’s participation in support networks, both sanctioned and illicit, in the Scottish town of Canongate in the early seventeenth century. Canongate’s official system of poor relief, controlled by the local church court, was a central pillar of support for the town’s poor. It was responsive and well organized, but it hinged on both the need of the poor relief recipients and their maintenance of a good reputation in the town. Women without a passable public reputation were still able to find support, however, as the Canongate church disciplinary court records attest. These records reveal extensive informal and illicit support networks of townspeople harbouring ‘scandalous persons’, networks that both supplemented and contested the sanctioned support system. This article explores the relationship between these systems of poor relief and harbouring and demonstrates that women at the economic and moral margins of the town participated in a dense and vibrant network of support.

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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.135
Threshold uncertainty score0.268

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0100.014
Scholarly communication0.0040.003
Open science0.0010.004
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.031
GPT teacher head0.191
Teacher spread0.160 · 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

Citations3
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSocial HistorySame topicHistorical Economic and Social StudiesFrench-language works237,207