Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The extent to which non-elite youth in premodern Western societies had a culture of their own is an open question. “Youth culture” here refers to the many ways in which young people found meaning in and made meaning out of their lives, while “non-elite youth” designates young men and women who grew up in working families: peasants, artisans, and day laborers. Just as the status of youth was ambiguous, the culture of non-elite youth was contested, both between youth and the rest of society and between male and female youth. The times and spaces available to non-elite boys and girls to develop and experience their own culture were framed by the tasks they had to accomplish during youth: acquire the skills that would allow them to earn a living and find a spouse. In the early modern period, the customary tolerance of the disruptive and rowdy aspects of youth behavior—rebelliousness, illicit sexuality, and violence—gave way to fear and suspicion, as spiritual and political rulers throughout Europe undertook campaigns to control, Christianize, restrict, or ban various manifestations of youth culture and the activities of youth groups. The effect of such measures was limited, which suggests that they were not consistently enforced and that the common people continued to tolerate youthful disorder. Historians’ responses have been as ambivalent as those of premodern adults. Was the (predominantly male) culture of non-elite youth an expression of joy, creativity, and freedom and inherently benign, even utopian, or was it inherently violent, aggressive, and cruel?
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.014 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.110 | 0.011 |
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".