Bibliographic record
Abstract
“It is as impossible to establish an unity of religious opinion, as it is for man to regulate the great movements of the ocean,” wrote Benjamin Bousfield in 1791. Early Romanticism arose during an era in which literary innovations and political identities were shaped by diverse currents of belief and practice, by waves of religious opinion. Impelled by heterogeneous doctrines, tastes, interests, and ideologies, individuals formed themselves into sectarian, denominational, non-denominational, and established societies, assuming a series of correspondent personal, social, and aesthetic perspectives. The variety and popularity of religious writing during the early Romantic period suggest that to many, including the range of figures that this book has considered, efforts to comprehend the natures of and relationships between individuals, communities, and God played complex and crucial roles in the development of publicly oriented literary and political programs. The meaning of religious organization itself provided a conflicted field of debate and representation through which early Romantic writers understood themselves and their work. If during the late eighteenth century many nonconformist writers associated themselves with liberal Dissenting denominations whereas others, especially lapsed Anglicans, embraced either non-denominational or anti-sectarian varieties of nonconformity, early-nineteenth-century literary culture saw a steady diminution of the former, denominational mode. As liberal Dissent gave way to Methodism, Evangelicalism, and the missionary movement, and as the progress of the French Revolution and the Revolutionary War drove England into a period of political and religious retrenchment, the public viability of denominational or sectarian identities dwindled in the minds of many heterodox nonconformist writers, and so did the possibilities of literary affiliations explicitly rooted in the values and interests of these clearly defined religious organizations.
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 | 0.004 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.161 | 0.062 |
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".