Bibliographic record
Abstract
Charivari traditions have been documented in parts of Europe and North America from the Middle Ages to the present, with cognate customs found across the world. Historically, they involved a raucous, parading, house visit usually incited by weddings or relationships a community deemed problematic. They conventionally dramatized popular objections to weddings between two older people; between an older and a younger person; involving a widow and/or widower – especially too soon after the previous spouse's death; and/or involving a racially mixed or religiously diverse couple. Charivariers often sought to exact a price – money, cigarettes, food, and/or drink, especially alcohol – for the couple's transgression of traditional expectations that marriage should be between two previously unmarried, fertile young people with common ethnoracial and religious heritages. Charivari has also been used to describe a number of noisy parading performances traditionally directed toward a variety of offenders against community morality and sensibility, including unpopular politicians, officials, employers, and public servants. Currently, charivari is practiced primarily in rural areas and is instead a community welcome. However, progressive social protest groups often use charivari's historic noisemaking modes, including pots and pans beaten with wooden spoons, to draw attention to their causes, demonstrating the tradition's malleability.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.193 | 0.069 |
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".