Jerome Zanchi, the Application of Theology, and the Rise of the English Practical Divinity Tradition
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cet article s'inscrit dans le débat récemment relancé sur la relation entre les théologiens scolastiques de la Réforme et les premiers réformateurs, mais propose également de l'amener dans une nouvelle direction. On y analyse d'abord la doctrine de Dieu, telle que développée par Jerome Zanchi (1516-1590), en mettant en relief comment il passe de conclusions de théologie systématique à des implications de théologie pratique, en particulier, à travers son usage de la convention dite de l'usus doctrinae. L'article cherche ensuite à estimer l'impact de cette convention en dehors des milieux érudits en explorant la relation entre le discours de Zanchi et la tradition anglaise pratique de la divinité. On y met donc en lumière comment les pasteurs et les théologiens populaires ont emprunté à Zanchi dans le cadre de leur charge d'âmes et de réforme de la nation anglaise.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.015 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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.
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".