Disorder, Riot and Governance in Early Tudor London: Evil May Day, 1517
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract On the eve of the May Day festival in 1517, a night of anti-immigrant violence broke out in London. Though pre-modern English historians have frequently invoked Evil May Day, as it came to be called, it has only recently been given concerted scholarly attention. The riot itself was ordinary, one amongst dozens in the first decades of the sixteenth century; it reveals, as a reflection of endemic grievance, a constellation of tensions surrounding labour, immigration, masculine identities, and governance in early Tudor London. More extraordinary, and heretofore not much noticed, was the Crown reaction to the Evil May Day disturbances, on which this article focuses. The insurrectionists were prosecuted for high treason rather than the minor charge of riot; a multi-day pageant of severe justice punctuated by theatrical reprieves followed. At least fifteen were put to death within London’s city walls and there are indications that the final execution toll was much greater, perhaps as high as forty-three. Such a toll following a mild riot could only have been unexpected and shocking, even if in fact ‘only’ fifteen rather than forty or more were executed. This was a message from the Crown both strategically conceived and emotionally driven by the king’s own rage, fury and fear. Though it was the youthful rioters who constituted most of those put to death in the aftermath, the message was meant primarily for the London civic elite, who had dared to question Crown policy and had failed to control the violence in their city.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.010 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 0.001 |
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.
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".