MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4323338051 · doi:10.1017/9781846157585.009

Pardoning and Revolt: The Peasants Rising of 1381

2009· other· en· W4323338051 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Helen Lacey

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typeother
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicHistorical Economic and Social Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsParliamentScholarshipGovernment (linguistics)House of CommonsSWORDLawHistoryPolitical sciencePoliticsPhilosophyEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Only four years after the jubilee celebrations of 1377, Richard II's government issued a general pardon, but this time there were no references to celebration; rather it was a response to the unprecedented crisis of the Peasants’ Revolt. The terms of the pardon were presented to Parliament on 13 December 1381; all the king's subjects were to be granted mercy, both those accused of rebellion and those who had remained loyal. Considering the volume of scholarship generated on the Peasants’ Revolt, the subject of pardon has only ever been given fleeting reference. This is somewhat surprising in light of the long-running debate on how best to characterise government reaction to the rebels and their demands; did the Crown exercise commendable moderation in dealing with the rebels, as Barrie Dobson claimed, or was there in fact a vindictive campaign of repression? J. A. Tuck's work on the Parliament held after the revolt in the autumn of 1381, highlighted the divide between the Lords and Commons, the latter championing the policy of moderation that was eventually adopted. More recently, Andrew Prescott has suggested that we have glossed over the events in London in the immediate aftermath of the revolt, because of the absence of the relevant legal records. He argues that chronicle accounts give a true picture of the devastation in London, with rebels being put to the sword or hanged in their thousands. Rather than enter into the debate about the number of rebels sentenced to death, this chapter examines some of the ideas about the nature of royal mercy that were thrown into relief by the events of 1381. Several of the chroniclers noted that, at the height of the revolt in London, the rebels and the government representatives both referred to the notion of royal grace. The idea of pardon also played a prominent role in the subsequent judicial proceedings and in the parliamentary debates. The surviving records of the revolt thus shed light on some of the late medieval assumptions about the nature of royal mercy, assumptions it was perhaps only necessary to articulate at a time of such unprecedented crisis. Events in London The chronicle accounts of Walsingham, Froissart and the Anonimalle Chronicle are the main sources for the early stages of the revolt, from the first localised expressions of discontent in late May and early June 1381 through to the famous meetings between the king and Wat Tyler and his band.

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)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.081
Threshold uncertainty score0.162

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0320.016
Scholarly communication0.0110.004
Open science0.0010.006
Research integrity0.0050.008
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0110.002

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 head0.031
GPT teacher head0.209
Teacher spread0.178 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicHistorical Economic and Social StudiesFrench-language works237,207