MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4221076427 · doi:10.1057/s41599-022-01116-5

Women’s work on small change: privately issued currency by women in mid-17th century London

2022· article· en· W4221076427 on OpenAlexfundno aff
I Or

Bibliographic record

VenueHumanities and Social Sciences Communications · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicHistorical Economic and Social Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersEdmond J. Safra Center for Ethics, Harvard UniversityAzrieli FoundationTel Aviv UniversityHebrew University of Jerusalem
KeywordsIssuerSecurity tokenLegal statusEconomic shortageCurrencyValue (mathematics)Work (physics)Representation (politics)BusinessBarterLawPolitical scienceEconomicsFinanceGovernment (linguistics)EngineeringMarket economyComputer securityMonetary economicsComputer sciencePolitics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract This paper focuses on privately issued currencies by women in mid-17th century London. These currencies appeared across England as part of a large wave of minting which began during the English Civil War as a result of severe shortages of low value coinage (‘small change’), used for purposes of petty trade. In London alone over 4200 tradesmen and businesses issued tokens, only around 140 of these issuers were women. The tokens are a rare visual and material source on the daily life of working women and their self-representation. By contextualizing the issuers’ occupations and token designs within the history of women’s legal status, this paper will demonstrate that token issuers were likely not under the status of married women. The paper examines who these women issuers were, their occupations, and the legal status that enabled them to become independent active agents within the new commercial sphere of tokens. The paper will demonstrate that the artifact of tokens issued by women is extraordinary within the phenomenon, though the line of work these women did was not unique in the period. The ability of women to represent themselves on a token was likely a direct result of their legal status and the commercial rights it entailed.

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)0.003
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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.076
Threshold uncertainty score0.150

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0090.015
Scholarly communication0.0090.005
Open science0.0010.004
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0120.001

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 head0.223
GPT teacher head0.272
Teacher spread0.049 · 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
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHumanities and Social Sciences CommunicationsSame topicHistorical Economic and Social StudiesFrench-language works237,207