Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT Early modern demoniacs were diagnosed through a process of negotiation between patient and community. Possession knowledge, then, was locally generated, a function of the space in which it was produced. This article, though, turns to consider the related problem of how a contested possession—one where this dynamic seems to have broken down—was established for a national audience in print. It examines how the author of the 1593 The Most strange and admirable discoverie of the three witches of Warboys, an account of the possession of the five daughters of Robert Throckmorton, endeavored to fashion a credible relation to convince readers that the three witches recently executed for murder by witchcraft were also responsible for the bewitching of the Thockmorton girls. I argue that this was done in a process analogous to diagnosis in situ, with the author establishing for himself a reputable persona, and deploying the rhetorical technique of enargeia in order to craft a beguiling textual spectacle.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.028 | 0.042 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".