MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7125788994 · doi:10.7264/r8cdn213

Beadmaking during the 17th and 18th Centuries in Eu County, Normandy

2021· article· W7125788994 on OpenAlexaff
Guillaume Klaës, Brad Loewen

Bibliographic record

VenueBeads (Ottawa. Online)/Beads · 2021
Typearticle
Language
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicCultural Heritage Materials Analysis
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsContext (archaeology)Mediterranean climatePeriod (music)Western europeMiddle Ages

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper reconstructs the history of a family of French beadmakers in Eu County, Normandy, from 1687 to 1747, as well as the context of their migration from the urban beadmaking center of Rouen. While Normandy had produced windowpane and bottles since the Middle Ages, artisans who made “crystal” soda glass – the glass of beads – were newcomers from Italy and Languedoc. They founded glassworks in Paris and Rouen in the late 16th century. Conflicts with Rouen artisans and merchants led the Mediterranean glassworkers to migrate to Eu County in 1634, where their crystal factories spun off a rural beadmaking trade. The present research builds on 19th-century archaeological reports of beads and beadmaking wasters in the villages of Aubermesnil-aux-Érables and Villers-sous-Foucarmont. We have identified three generations of the Demary family of beadmakers in the Eu Forest. Using genealogical methods, we have traced their migration from Rouen, their family history, and their links to Mediterranean crystal glassmakers. The example of the Demary patenôtriers sheds light on a transitional period of beadmaking in Normandy, characterized by its ruralization and its proximity with forest glassmaking in the second half of the 17th century.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies, Scholarly communication, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.776
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.000

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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.239
Teacher spread0.220 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

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
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBeads (Ottawa. Online)/BeadsSame topicCultural Heritage Materials AnalysisFrench-language works237,207