MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4385290503 · doi:10.1353/jem.2022.a902585

Wet Nurses under Scrutiny: Regulating Lactation in the Seventeenth-Century Casa Cuna

2022· article· en· W4385290503 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Emily Colbert Cairns

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal for Early Modern Cultural Studies · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicLatin American history and culture
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsScrutinyHumanismEliteBreastfeedingEarly modern periodQuarter (Canadian coin)Period (music)HistorySociologyEconomic historyMedicinePolitical scienceLawPediatricsArtAncient historyAestheticsPoliticsArchaeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

abstract: Wet nursing was a central industry in the early modern period. Its widespread use can be seen throughout society, from royal and elite babies down to the lowest ranks, including orphans. Infant feeding and nutrition were a significant source of debate; before the advent of formula, breastmilk was the only option for young babies. Throughout the early modern period, humanists wrote about the benefits of mother's milk over that of a wet nurse. Sevillano humanist Luis Brochero echoes the preference for mother's milk and simultaneously demands reform for orphan care in his 1629 Discurso breve ( Brief Treatise ). His focus on this marginalized community is unique within the discourse of didactic texts about breastfeeding. In order to determine if any of the theoretical proposals endorsed by Brochero were implemented in practice, this article analyzes the seventeenth-century archival collection of Pagos a las amas ( Payments for Wet Nurses ) and the foundational Libro de los protocolos ( Book of Protocols ) from a foundling home, the Casa Cuna in Seville, Spain.

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)0.004
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 score0.258
Threshold uncertainty score0.514

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0180.018
Scholarly communication0.0040.002
Open science0.0010.006
Research integrity0.0010.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.076
GPT teacher head0.311
Teacher spread0.235 · 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
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal for Early Modern Cultural StudiesSame topicLatin American history and cultureFrench-language works237,207