Society, Suspicion, and the Supernatural: The Factors Behind the Salem Witch Trials
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Salem witch trials of 1692-1693 evolved out of the factors of religious fanaticism controlling Massachusetts society, patriarchal constructs that negatively impacted the views of and the actions of women, white North American constructs of race and ethnicity, interpersonal and societal tensions, and the aftermath of King Philip’s War. Religious domination of Salem life espoused conformity, the supernatural as an explanation for negative events, and the dangers of secularism. Samuel Parris played upon these factors of the Puritan religion, along with the tensions between Salem Village and Salem Town, to spur the start of the witch trials, as he was personally affected by a supernatural bewitching. Puritan women, whether afflicted or accused, were subject to extreme notions of conformity and religious doctrine that maintained the inherent sinfulness of women but found avenues of power through accusing others of witchcraft or behaving as an afflicted. Parris’ slave, Tituba, represents the racial and ethnic outsider, whose Native American heritage cast her as the propagator of Salem’s demonic activity, but who was able to find power by upending the racial hierarchy the community had created. Economic tensions between Salem Town and Salem Village were highlighted in the witchcraft accusations and were exacerbated by religious differences and climate conditions. King Philip’s War impacted Salem’s concepts of Native Americans as demonic witches, highlighted the existence of religious enemies, diminished the authority of government, and increased Puritan awareness of sin.
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 | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.011 | 0.026 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.000 |
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.
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".