MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Reappraising the Elizabethan and Early Stuart Soldier: Recent Historiography on Early Modern English Military Culture

2011· article· en· W2167732733 on OpenAlexaff
David R. Lawrence

Bibliographic record

VenueHistory Compass · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicHistorical Economic and Social Studies
Canadian institutionsYork University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHistoriographyPraiseHonourHistoryEnglish RevolutionConfessionalClassicsMilitary historyPoliticsMedia studiesLiteraturePolitical scienceLawSociologyAncient historyArt

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract For much of the 20th century, historians could muster little praise for the late Tudor and early Stuart soldiery, often portraying them as amateurs who were part of a decaying and moribund military tradition isolated from the transformations shaping warfare on the European continent. In the 1980s and 1990s, these theories were tested and found wanting by those who argued that the English were fully engaged in the so‐called early modern military revolution. Instead of decline and decay, England is now considered to have been engaged in the military revolution from early in the 16th century, with scholars arguing that the English art of war was in step with continental practice. This article weighs the contributions of a new generation of historians to the ongoing reappraisal of late Tudor and early Stuart soldiering over the last decade. Along with examining England and the military revolution, new work has focused much attention on the motivations and mentalities of English officers serving in France, the Low Countries and Ireland, with confessional zeal, honour and economic hardship seen as the primary factors motivating English volunteers to serve abroad. At the same time, scholars are also taking a fresh look at how military administration and improvements to training affected the lives of common soldiers.

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 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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.614
Threshold uncertainty score0.973

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
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 head0.060
GPT teacher head0.198
Teacher spread0.137 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations4
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHistory CompassSame topicHistorical Economic and Social StudiesFrench-language works237,207