MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3171393525 · doi:10.1017/9781107323742.013

Nuns and Monks at Work: Equality or Distinction between the Sexes? A Study of Frankish Monasteries from the Sixth to the Tenth Century

2020· book-chapter· en· W3171393525 on OpenAlexaff
Isabelle Réal, Lochin Brouillard

Bibliographic record

VenueCambridge University Press eBooks · 2020
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicMedieval Literature and History
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMonasticismAsceticismIdeal (ethics)Religious lifeChoseCharismaDeterminativeOrder (exchange)HistoryLiteratureClassicsSociologyGender studiesGenealogyReligious studiesPhilosophyTheologyAncient historyArtLawEpistemologyPolitical scienceArchaeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Was there equality between the sexes in Frankish monasticism? Historians today agree that monastic life was conceived of at its inception as non-gendered. The men and women who chose such a life all aspired toward the same ideal: living as perfect Christians. The paths that they followed in order to reach that ideal—the desert, peregrination, private life, or life within a community—varied, but the criterion of gender was not determinative in their decision-making. All shared a number of principles (asceticism, chastity, prayers, charity) drawing on an accepted canon of foundational texts (the Gospels, treatises, sermons, rules), which, though they might have been written with one sex or the other in mind, were used in an interchangeable manner. The charismatic role and the functions that these religious men and women performed for the lay community were as important, perhaps even more important in the case of consecrated virgins, whose angelic purity was believed to make their prayers more potent.

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)0.002
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: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.205
Threshold uncertainty score0.407

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0250.024
Scholarly communication0.0060.003
Open science0.0010.005
Research integrity0.0010.003
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 head0.054
GPT teacher head0.202
Teacher spread0.148 · 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

Citations2
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCambridge University Press eBooksSame topicMedieval Literature and HistoryFrench-language works237,207