Bibliographic record
Abstract
Sex workers in early modern Florence worked under a regulatory regime governed by Florence’s Ufficiali dell’Onestà, a magistracy like many others in Italy with similar remit. Under this regime, sex workers possessed both obligations and rights. This article uses sentences promulgated by the Onestà to assess the spatial character of those obligations and rights. Infractions by and against sex workers were punished according to a spatial regime within which sex workers received broad protections; straying beyond the spatial borders enacted by the magistracy removed those sex workers from the protection of the law. The article details the sentences of the Onestà in Florence, demonstrating the gendered spatial characteristics of the regulation of sex work in early modern Florence. It also maps infractions against the regulations of sex work in order to better understand how early modern Florentines lived in, moved through and conceived of their city as a moral and ethical space. Using Historical Geographic Information Systems, this article argues that sex workers in Florence were required to know their place, and to stay within it, in order to work legally and with legal protections.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 teacher head, 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".