MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2266167206 · doi:10.29173/mruhr212

Reginald Scot and King James I: The Influence of Skepticism

2015· article· en· W2266167206 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Kimberly Marie-Anne Bercovice

Bibliographic record

VenueMount Royal Undergraduate Humanities Review (MRUHR) · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicRenaissance and Early Modern Studies
Canadian institutionsMount Royal University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSkepticismHoaxWitchDeedHistoryClassicsArtPhilosophyTheologyLawPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The witch trials were less robust in England than in contiental Europe and the efforts of England's first skeptic, Reginal Scot, may have contributed to the outcome. Scot's efforts to debunk witchraft in his book The Discoverie of Witchcraft (1584), were done so in a logical, methodical and theological manner. King James VI of Scotland felt the need call out the doubters of witchcraft, and named Scot specifially, in his own work Daemonologie (1597) and upon becoming King James I of England, he banned Scot's book. It is apparent, however, through the King's changing attitudes and eventual desire to reveal the hoaxes for what they were it becomes evident that the information Scot sought to reveal did in deed have an impact on the King.

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)0.001
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 score0.881
Threshold uncertainty score0.941

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
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 head0.070
GPT teacher head0.257
Teacher spread0.187 · 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

Citations1
Published2015
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMount Royal Undergraduate Humanities Review (MRUHR)Same topicRenaissance and Early Modern StudiesFrench-language works237,207