Seventeenth-Century Dutch Reformed, Mennonites, and Spiritualists on One Another, Jews, and Muslims
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract: This paper examines religious identity in the early-modern Netherlands by comparing attitudes between Calvinists and Mennonites toward each other and toward the Arminian Reformed (Remonstrants), Jews, and Muslims. Opting for a national Reformed Church without mandatory membership, the Dutch regents generally did not interfere in the private religious culture of dissenting sects and restricted the exclusionary demands of Reformed preachers, allowing law-abiding Mennonites and Jews a remarkable degree of freedom of conscience and practice. Outsiders thought the Dutch Republic's toleration to be very un-Protestant, although when the Remonstrants and Counter-Remonstrants threatened to destroy the unity of the national church, the regents intervened. Many regents clearly favoured the spiritualists' emphasis on personal piety and unity over confession and ritual, and showed considerable respect for Muslim officials and Jewish residents. Foreign Calvinists, who feared that the Netherlands' unusual form of religious toleration was including Jews and Muslims, were not entirely off base.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 teacher head, 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".