MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4239189414 · doi:10.24124/2017/1341

Caring Conjurers and demonic diviners: gender and the unstable position of peasant magical practitioners in Catalonia, 1300-1330

2017· dissertation· en· W4239189414 on OpenAlexaff
Larissa Clotildes

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typedissertation
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicReformation and Early Modern Christianity
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Northern British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPeasantMAGIC (telescope)SuperstitionPatriarchyTamilGender studiesSociologyHistoryLiteratureArtArchaeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This thesis compares visitation records from the dioceses of Barcelona and Tortosa from 1303-1330 to analyse gender and peasant magical practises. It argues that peasant magic reflected gender norms that associated nurturance and passivity with women and protection and activity with men, but also reversed these norms through the greater publicity of women’s magic. Furthermore, bishops’ perspective of women shaped their interpretation of peasant magic as either a demonic threat to Christians’ souls or mere foolishness and superstition. By examining how the feminine stereotype of peasant magical practitioners differently manifested in Barcelona and Tortosa, and contrasting the stereotypical image to the real numbers of men and women who performed magic, the language of magical practice, and the community roles and characteristics of magical practitioners, this thesis contributes to understandings of not only the belief and practise of magic in the medieval world, but also the flexibility of medieval patriarchy.

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: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.153
Threshold uncertainty score0.305

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 studies0.0040.008
Scholarly communication0.0030.001
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.027
GPT teacher head0.255
Teacher spread0.228 · 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 designQualitative
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
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicReformation and Early Modern Christianity→French-language works237,207→