MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W925985108

Imiona chrzestne dzieci chłopskich okolic Fajsławic w drugiej połowie XVIII wieku

2013· article· pl· W925985108 on OpenAlexaff
Kazimierz Adamiak

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languagepl
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicLanguage and Culture
Canadian institutionsWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDemographyPeriod (music)GenealogyHistoryCultSAINTAncient historyGeographyEthnologySociologyPhilosophyArt history
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

First names given to children depend on many factors: ethnic background, religion, geographic location, societal status or time period. This article deals with the name-giving pattern and its evolution in peasant families during the period 1757-1809 in four villages within the realm of the parish of Fajslawice in the Lublin Region. The four villages in question were: Fajslawice, Siedliska, Suchodoly and Wola Idzikowska. At the beginning of the period under analysis, the pool of baptismal names was rather small: only 33 different male and 26 female names were used. The distribution of these names was hardly homogenous: 8.3% of all boys were named Wojciech, 19.8% of girls – Marianna, while some other names were used only once. A similar pattern was also observed in the other regions of Poland at that time. In order to identify what motivated parents as regards name selection, a few factors have been investigated: birth near the patron saint day, name inheritance from parents, and inspiration from the local cult of saints. The statistical analysis of the annual distribution of given names over the first 13 years of the parish’s existence proved to be most strongly affected by the date of birth: 95.8% of all boys were given the name of a saint, whose patron date was in the period of 4 weeks before or 4 weeks after the boy’s birth date; 81.6% for those who were born two weeks before or one week after the patron date. In most cases, the name was selected after a patron whose day was after the birth date. For girls’ names, the effect of the birth date on the baptismal name was slightly weaker, but still dominant: 86.9% of all girls born during the period between 4 weeks before and 4 weeks after the saint day received the name of the patroness. The analysis has also shown that the children’s names were practically not affected by the parents’ names or the names of a parish patron saint. The same name was given to siblings only if the previous one had died. In the period of 50 years under analysis, the naming pattern underwent a significant change: 76 new names were introduced (44 for boys and 32 for girls). Practically all of them followed the calendar rule, but the crucial role in their selection was played by the parish priests: some of them were more conservative and introduced practically no new names; some others were very creative, although some of the names they suggested did not stay in the pool of active names for a long time. The tradition of giving two names was not very significant, but, some parish priests tended to give double names more often than others. Many new names, both single and double ones, were inspired by new saints canonized in the 17 th and the 18 th century, especially those, who were Jesuits.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.020

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.007
GPT teacher head0.256
Teacher spread0.249 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicLanguage and CultureFrench-language works237,207