MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2021291352 · doi:10.1098/rsnr.2000.0105

John Ray (1627-1705) and the Act of Uniformity 1662

2000· article· en· W2021291352 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueNotes and Records the Royal Society Journal of the History of Science · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicHistorical Philosophy and Science
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
FundersRoyal Society
KeywordsNatural (archaeology)Period (music)PoliticsNatural lawLawNatural historyClassicsSociologyNatural philosophyPhilosophyHistoryReligious studiesTheologyPolitical scienceEpistemologyAestheticsArchaeologyMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

John Ray was one of the most influential British natural philosophers of the 17th century. His model of natural history served as an organizing principle for the philosophic understanding of living nature and his works on natural theology were seminal. Many modern historians have placed Ray within the Puritan tradition, primarily based on Ray's choice, as an ordained Anglican priest, to leave his fellowship at Cambridge rather than subscribe to the Act of Uniformity in 1662. However, Ray left no explicit evidence of either his religious or political views during this period and his reasons for refusing to subscribe to the Act are not transparent. My analysis of his early Essex environment, his friends and associates at Cambridge University, his correspondence during the crucial years of 1660–62 and the strategies he pursued in his only contemporary published work, the Catalogus Plantarum circa Cantabrigiam (1660) provide no evidence to situate Ray within a Puritan framework and much evidence to suggest that Ray remained committed to Anglican and loyalist principles throughout his career.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.850
Threshold uncertainty score0.987

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.016
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.203
Teacher spread0.181 · 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