MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2291372870 · doi:10.7202/1032840ar

Reading Across Borders: The Case of Anne Clifford’s “Popish” Books

2015· article· en· W2291372870 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Leah Knight

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of the Canadian Historical Association · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicReformation and Early Modern Christianity
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersUniversity of Oxford
KeywordsOrthodoxyContext (archaeology)PoliticsProtestantismState (computer science)SociologyReading (process)Religious studiesLawClassicsHistoryTheologyPolitical sciencePhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper investigates the experiences of Anne Clifford (1590–1676) with three controversial books: the anonymous libel known as Leicester’s Commonwealth ; the Jesuit Robert Parsons’ Resolution (and its Protestant adaptation by Edward Bunny); and François De Sales’ Introduction to a Devout Life. Clifford’s unorthodox choice of reading material in these cases appears to jar with ideas about what an early modern woman — loyal to the Church of England and to the state, even through the political and religious uproar of England’s civil wars — could, would, or did read: all three titles were “popish,” one was seditious, and two saw many copies burned before Clifford obtained her own. Evidence for Clifford’s reading of these works is set in the context of her own wider habits and circumstances to understand her motives for attending to such seemingly controversial materials. The paper concludes that Clifford’s attention to these books does not likely reflect any divergence from her avowed orthodoxy, and unveils the likelihood of other motives for her engagement, such as genealogical research.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.014
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.156
Threshold uncertainty score0.311

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.014
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0510.023
Scholarly communication0.0130.008
Open science0.0020.009
Research integrity0.0050.008
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.044
GPT teacher head0.254
Teacher spread0.210 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations56
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of the Canadian Historical AssociationSame topicReformation and Early Modern ChristianityFrench-language works237,207