MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2054595673 · doi:10.1163/157006807x244934

Time, Habit, and Agency in English Puritanism

2007· article· en· W2054595673 on OpenAlex
Steven Engler

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

VenueMethod & Theory in the Study of Religion · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicReformation and Early Modern Christianity
Canadian institutionsRoyal College of Physicians and Surgeons of CanadaMount Royal University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAgency (philosophy)HabituationProtestant work ethicSociologySocial psychologyProtestantismModernityEpistemologyLate modernityLeverage (statistics)Norm (philosophy)PsychologyAestheticsSocial sciencePhilosophyLawReligious studiesPolitical sciencePolitics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract This paper attempts to fill in a dimension of discussions of religious relations between memory and the body, time and agency, habituation and social control. Analyzing the works of seventeenth-century divine Richard Rogers, I distinguish two ways of attending to time: amount of time spent well, and continuity of attention. For Rogers, lapses in memory and moment of idleness are gaps through which Satan snares the unwary; the godly must foster correct habits "at all times." The case of English Puritanism underlines the central role that time plays in the formation of correctly habituated human activity. It points to a key site at which religious ideas and practices gain leverage over human agency. It suggests further that modernity is distinguished by the more effective means of habituation fostered by highly motivated and consistent attentiveness to time. This distinction goes beyond Weber and other work on the Protestant ethic thesis and could inform further empirical work in the area.

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)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.530
Threshold uncertainty score0.270

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.277
Teacher spread0.257 · 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