Thomas Starkey and the Commonwealth. Humanist Politics and Religion in the Reign of Henry VIII
Bibliographic record
Abstract
recognized his own shortcomings and refused high office when he felt it beyond his experience or personal capacities.Furthermore, he was an able and clear-sighted administrator whose advice was sought eagerly on national, imperial and maritime affairs, even after his retirement from active service.But this portrait is gained almost exclusively through inference.Although Pierson explicitly evaluates the duke's military or naval and administrative talents, he rarely deals with the intimate man, his personal outlook or motivations, leaving the reader with an incomplete impression of the duke.Instead, Pierson 's admitted focus is on Medina Sidonia's official career.The problem with this approach is, however, that at times the duke seems only to be an incidental figure in the drama and not the principal actor.In Chapter VI, for example, he almost entirely disappears in the welter of detail over the final preparations for the Armada.As a result, some ideal opportunities to probe deeply the duke's mind are missed, especially his reluctance to accept the Armada's command.This seems to suggest that Medina Sidonia is important only in relation to the background of great events and is therefore not worthy of study beyond his official life.But it is easy to criticize.The fact remains that Pierson's book is an important one.In reconstructing Medina Sidonia's career, the author provides extensive details on the organization of sixteenth-century Spain's coastal defence.Also valuable are Pierson's brief sketches of the men associated with Medina Sidonia and the internal workings of Philip II's government through connections of family and clientage.As for Pierson's reinterpretation of the Armada campaign, it is exciting and fresh.Finally, and perhaps most importantly, he restores the reputationof the commander of that failed "Enterprise of England," giving him his just due.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.001 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".