MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4312413079 · doi:10.25071/0848-1563.39704

Christianization: Women’s Immolation in Europe, India, and Japan (1550-1650)

2018· article· en· W4312413079 on OpenAlexaff
Che-Wen Cindy Lin

Bibliographic record

VenueHistorical Papers · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicEarly Modern Women Writers
Canadian institutionsYork University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsChristianizationAncient historySocioeconomicsPolitical scienceGeographyDemographyHistoryCriminologyGender studiesSociologyArchaeologyChristianity

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

During the European Reformation, European states were nations "with the soul of a church." For example, one of Fris' devout converts, Hosokawa Gracia, became a Christian martyr by having her subordinate kill her and then burn her body. The immolation of her remains became a contributing factor to the conclusion of the long-time warring state era from 1467 to 1603. In the same period, the practice of sati or suttee (widow-burning) and witch-hunts existed in India and Europe respectively. Since the European states at the time were under the control of the Church, the vast majority of witch-hunt scholars approach the subject from a Christian perspective to explain that those who performed witch-craft had to be punished in order to maintain a godly state. Conversely, Silvia Federici approaches the witch-hunts through a Marxist framework, arguing that witches' protests had to be suppressed to enable Europe's transition from feudalism to capitalism -a result of the witch-hunt in Europe and its extension to Central and North America. In this article, I use a postcolonial lens, based on an a posteriori model of

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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 score0.026
Threshold uncertainty score0.051

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0090.010
Scholarly communication0.0050.002
Open science0.0010.005
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.188
Teacher spread0.175 · 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
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHistorical PapersSame topicEarly Modern Women WritersFrench-language works237,207