Bibliographic record
Abstract
The puritan response to poverty, which was, or should have been, the dominant concern of anyone with a liability or concern for social policy in the late sixteenth and early seventeenth centuries, combined elements of utopianism and pragmatism, making it a subject especially worthy of inclusion in a collection of tributes to Barrie Dobson. But this is no new subject. Nearly half a century ago, Christopher Hill published an essay on the most representative of puritan divines, ‘William Perkins and the Poor’. Hill read Perkins selectively, and suggested that so did Perkins's original readers. They would have filtered out, as he filtered out, the hard things that Perkins, as a representative Puritan, had to say about the spiritual peril of riches, and about the obligation of those with means to do so to give without stint. Hill believed that the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries witnessed a drastic change in social attitudes, one which was favourable to the proto-capitalist ethic. 'To be sure he did not have to invent the fervour with which puritan preachers and writers castigated work-shy idleness. But this was not all that the Puritans had to say on the subject of poverty and how Christians should respond to it, and much of it, as John Walsh has remarked of John Wesley's doctrine and practice in the eighteenth century, was ‘not the stuff of which the capitalist ethic is easily constructed’.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.013 | 0.031 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".