MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1572652213 · doi:10.21971/p7fw22

Faith, Families, and Rebellion in Sixteenth-Century South-West England

2008· article· en· W1572652213 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Pamela Stanton

Bibliographic record

VenueCrossing boundaries · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicReformation and Early Modern Christianity
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsKinshipGentryContext (archaeology)GenealogyFaithNew englandPoliticsMilitarismPerspective (graphical)HistoryGender studiesGovernment (linguistics)Period (music)Political scienceSociologyLawTheologyArchaeologyArt

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The questioning of"the English Reformation" as both a definable entity and a usable term by revisionist scholars, provides a timely platform from which to engage in a re-examination of one event which occurred daring that period of profound religious change in sixteenth-century England. The 1549 rebellion in the south-west of England has been studied using 'traditional* analytical categories of religion, politics, economics, and militarism. However, a new perspective on the rebellion is possible when the kinship ties of a group of leading gentry families in the south-west are examined. Although some historians recognize the close relationships which existed within the group, the focus is on the men of the families as local government officials without placing them in the wider context of their families. A close examination of the connections between the Arundell, Edgecombe, and Grenville families reveals a confused genealogical picture; one that suggests, however, that close kinship ties may have played an important part in the participation or lack of involvement of the family members in the rebellion.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.132
Threshold uncertainty score0.262

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0110.013
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0010.004
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.028
GPT teacher head0.221
Teacher spread0.193 · 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 designQualitative
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
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCrossing boundariesSame topicReformation and Early Modern ChristianityFrench-language works237,207