MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W3036945496 · doi:10.33137/rr.v41i3.31557

All That Glitters: Devaluing the Gold Standard in the Utopias of Thomas More, Francis Bacon, and Margaret Cavendish

2018· article· en· W3036945496 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Catherine Gimelli Martin

Bibliographic record

VenueRenaissance and Reformation · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicHistorical Economic and Social Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanitiesValue (mathematics)ArtArt historyMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Francis Bacon’s and Margaret Cavendish’s ideal societies unexpectedly follow Thomas More’s Utopia in eliminating the exchange value of gold and replacing it with a knowledge economy. Bacon’s New Atlantis (1627) and Cavendish’s Blazing World (1666) similarly pursue new “light” and shun selfish profit, private trade, capital accumulation, and conspicuous consumption. Unlike More, they allow gold to retain its traditional decorative and symbolic functions, but its “use value” completely trumps its exchange value. Cavendish uses gold to construct and glorify her Blazing World and to forge astonishing defensive weapons, but it cannot be bought, sold, or even earned since it remains exclusively imperial. Bacon restricts gold to buying new “light” or knowledge and honouring thriving families with symbolic golden grape clusters, but like the Fathers of Salomon’s House, all three societies value only beneficial knowledge and the collaborative virtues taught by their new or improved religions to further universal peace and brotherhood. Les sociétés idéales imaginées par Francis Bacon et Margaret Cavendish emboîtent étonnamment le pas à l’Utopie de Thomas More lorsqu’elles éliminent la valeur monétaire de l’or pour la remplacer par une économie du savoir. La New Atlantis de Bacon (1627) et le Blazing World de Cavendish (1666) proposent de façon comparable la quête d’une nouvelle lumière et le refus du profit égoïste, du commerce privé, de l’accumulation du capital et de la consommation ostentatoire. Toutefois, à la différence de More, ils permettent que soit maintenue la valeur esthétique et symbolique de l’or, qui éclipse ainsi complètement sa valeur de monnaie d’échange. Cavendish utilise l’or pour construire et glorifier son univers flamboyant et pour créer d’étonnantes armes défensives, mais il ne peut être ni acheté, ni vendu, ni même gagné, puisqu’il est exclusivement impérial. Bacon limite l’usage de l’or à l’achat d’une nouvelle lumière, c’est-à-dire de la connaissance, et à l’hommage des familles florissantes en leur offrant de symboliques grappes de raisins en or, mais tout comme les Pères de la Maison de Salomon, cettes trois sociétés valorisent uniquement la connaissance bénéfique et les vertus de collaboration qu’enseignent leur religion nouvelle et améliorée afin de favoriser la paix universelle et la fraternité.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.067
Threshold uncertainty score0.134

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0150.056
Scholarly communication0.0110.009
Open science0.0010.007
Research integrity0.0040.006
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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 head0.036
GPT teacher head0.240
Teacher spread0.204 · 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
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRenaissance and Reformation→Same topicHistorical Economic and Social Studies→French-language works237,207→