Resistance to Bishop Edward Feild in Newfoundland, 1845-1857, Harbour Buffett : a case study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This thesis sees religion as a major category of social history. Its focus is the evangelical opposition from 1845 to 1857 to the Tractarianism of Bishop Feild of the Church of England. The people of Harbour Buffett, Placentia Bay, and Thomas E. Collett were catalysts in that opposition which echoed back to England, itself. Refusals to pay to the Church Society were not the source of the opposition but merely one avenue of resistance to the theology and practice of Bishop Feild. -- Bishop Feild introduced Tractarianism to Newfoundland in the context of a robust Roman Catholicism under Bishop Michael Anthony Fleming and a vibrant, expanding Methodism. The latter cooperated with the evangelical Anglicans in the Newfoundland School Society. Feild drove both to toward political collaboration with Roman Catholics in bringing about Responsible Government by pressing for a denominational school system under the control of his clergy. -- These factors were prominent in Placentia Bay with its expanding economy, population and access to government services. Harbour Buffett was founded out of a desire of a scattered and mobile people, mainly of the evangelical Church of England, to centralize and establish a community with a school and a church. In this effort Archdeacon Wix and Bishop Spencer provided leadership. The Methodists and Newfoundland School Society were also a significant support in the community's evangelicalism which became a major obstacle to the introduction Bishop Feild's Tractarianism to Newfoundland. That evangelicalism, however, did not succeed.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.036 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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.
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".