MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Acting and <i>actio</i> in the sermons of Lancelot Andrewes

2009· article· en· W2058252383 on OpenAlex
John Wesley

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

VenueRenaissance Studies · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicReformation and Early Modern Christianity
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPulpitSermonDramaPersuasionMeaning (existential)The RenaissanceInterpretation (philosophy)RhetoricLiteratureCraftHistoryEpistemologyPhilosophyLinguisticsArtVisual artsTheologyArt history

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract This paper considers the interaction between performance and interpretation in the sermons of Lancelot Andrewes, and presents his pulpit oratory as a drama whose choreographed movements served the protean demands of impersonation as well as the revelation of meaning. Several recent studies have pointed to the shared cultural and religious functions of the pulpit and stage in Renaissance England, but this article focuses on their shared actions. The physical skills in delivery, or actio , so crucial to persuasion were first taught to Andrewes through academic drama, and I find this fusion of acting and learning reproduced in his sermons. So, in the concluding analysis of a 1602 sermon, an attempt is made to describe how an Andrewes performance might have looked, the speculation for which relies on the relationship between gesture and emotion that informs the craft of both actors and orators. It is suggested that the preacher's movements are inseparable not only from exegetical strategies, but also from the process of emotional discovery that guides and inspires belief.

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)0.000
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 score0.484
Threshold uncertainty score0.154

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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 head0.079
GPT teacher head0.295
Teacher spread0.216 · 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