Petitioning Mothers in England and Wales, 1660-1720
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This thesis examines 1,767 petitions submitted by mothers from across the socio-economic hierarchy to the crown, House of Lords, and quarter sessions courts in England and Wales between 1660 and 1720. These petitions reveal the every-day and in extremis situations that mothers of the early modern period faced, including soliciting poor relief, requesting school placements and employment, establishing maintenance for an illegitimate child and pleading for the release of an imprisoned child. Despite being a topic of interest to historians for the last half-century, a holistic socio-cultural study of the experiences of early modern motherhood and mothering across the life-cycle has yet to be written. This thesis contends that mothers cannot be studied in a vacuum or through the lens of one relationship in their life, such as mother-infant, mother-father, or mother-authority figure. It tests a new model to understand motherhood and argues that a mother was surrounded by concentric circles of relationships that offered both support and judgement. These relationships were socio-spatial, between a mother and her household, her kin, her community, and the state. Petitions arose when problems or a breakdown occurred in these relationships, requiring external intervention or support. They could also come into being when a circle turned their gaze inward towards the mother and disapproved of her parenting. Petitions demonstrate that the circles of individuals and institutions that monitored, scrutinised, and exerted pressure on mothers set the very expectations of motherhood itself. This thesis is structured around each of these circles, dealing with each in turn to consider the petitions that arose due to issues or conflicts within them. Overall, this PhD argues that studying motherhood using petitions helps uncover the social and cultural experiences and expectations of mothers shared by women of all socio-economic backgrounds.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".