MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3140445296 · doi:10.4324/9781003081395-15

Corpses in the contact zone

2021· book-chapter· en· W3140445296 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Sünne Juterczenka

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicMechanical stress and fatigue analysis
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsContact zoneGeologyGeochemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Based on a close reading of sources related to the Ursuline missions in Canada, this chapter explores the potential of body relics as signifiers of female spirituality. In the early modern period, religiously inspired women often read bodily effects as outward signs of spiritual experiences, making sensually perceptible what was verbally inexpressible. Manipulation of and control over the body could be a form of empowerment. To the Ursuline nuns, overseas missions offered unusual opportunities for religious self-expression and self-assertion. They adapted body techniques both in mystic experiences and in encouraging and/or enforcing religious and cultural assimilation in those targeted by their mission. After death, their bodies sometimes became precious objects of memory and religious devotion. While “saint deprivation” was keenly felt in the colonies, the Ursulines preserved and adored body relics for a whole range of other reasons. They clearly engaged in “saint fabrication,” but their treatment and use of the relics did not always conform to the church’s prescriptions. I argue that the body was well suited to signifying closeness of the divine, connectedness with a community, or indebtedness to shared models of sainthood precisely because bodily signs were equivocal and could be interpreted in more ways than one.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
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: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.602
Threshold uncertainty score0.800

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0110.004
Scholarly communication0.0030.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0250.002

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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.206
Teacher spread0.183 · 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
GenreOther

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
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicMechanical stress and fatigue analysisFrench-language works237,207