The “Metes and Bounds” of Manhood: Gender, Property, and Violence in Early Modern England
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This dissertation explores the relationship between masculinity and domestic space in early modern England. It argues that property and the body were symbolically linked, and hegemonic masculinity was contingent upon the ability to protect and control both. The sixteenth and seventeenth centuries saw the emergence of strict legal, spatial, and sensory boundaries around property, as men began to more clearly demarcate what they possessed. But migration, urban development, and shared resources made the creation and enforcement of property boundaries difficult. In London, increased migration from within the British Isles and immigration from Europe led to unprecedented population growth, and these demographic changes were associated with overcrowding, poverty, and disease. In the congested city, Londoners lived cheek by jowl, and overlapping living spaces were a source of tension between neighbours. Similar anxieties existed in rural areas surrounding London, where neighbours fought over the enclosure of common land and access to declining natural resources, like animals and timber. Shared and adjoining properties created conflict between neighbours, resulting in physical and verbal altercations that were litigated in the Court of Star Chamber. Gender historians have challenged the supposedly strict dichotomy of separate, gendered spheres, demonstrating how women traversed the boundaries between public and private while still maintaining links with the domestic space of the home. Less attention has been paid to the ways that men also navigated these spaces. By the seventeenth century, ideal masculinity was modeled through patriarchal authority over the boundaries around property and around the bodies of those who dwelled within.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.015 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".