MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4255929163 · doi:10.24124/2016/1252

Seen and not heard: the case against Mariá de Cazalla

2016· dissertation· en· W4255929163 on OpenAlexaff
Marina Lee-Anne Stuparyk

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typedissertation
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicEarly Modern Women Writers
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Northern British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWifeScrutinyEliteGender studiesReligious studiesSociologyHistoryPolitical scienceLawPhilosophyPolitics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

During the sixteenth century, rulers responded to perceived threats against Catholicism, complicating the religious climate in Spain. The Inquisition’s establishment affected all people in Spain, not just the elite. The development of gendered ideals and the theological response to concerns that the Church faced complicated the role that women played as second and third orders within the church. Religious women faced increased scrutiny and tighter control which concerned their gender more than their theological beliefs. The heretical charges levied against María de Cazalla concerned her status as a mother and wife and her insistence on assuming an authorial role as a teacher within her community. Maria's defense hinged on her understanding of gendered ideals in response to her perceived role as a woman. Its success rested on her own application of these ideals as a woman and how she responded to the Inquisition’s expectations.

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)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.015
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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.039
Threshold uncertainty score0.078

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.015
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0340.021
Scholarly communication0.0090.007
Open science0.0020.007
Research integrity0.0170.028
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.001

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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.235
Teacher spread0.214 · 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
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicEarly Modern Women WritersFrench-language works237,207