MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W248680730 · doi:10.3138/cjh.38.3.481

Sir Simonds D’Ewes and “the Poitovin Cholick”: Persecution, Toleration, and the Mind of a Puritan Member of the Long Parliament

2003· article· en· W248680730 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Sears McGee

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of History · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicHistorical Studies of British Isles
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTolerationParliamentPersecutionLawProtestantismScotsHouse of CommonsPoliticsPhilosophySociologyTheologyPolitical scienceReligious studies

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In 1637, Sir Simonds D’Ewes, MP, wrote a short treatise entitled The Primitive Practise For Preserving Truth. In it he argued that religious persecution was antichristian and that “tender consciences” should be protected and accommodated rather than forced. Knowing that the licensing authorities would reject it, D’Ewes did not publish his work until 1645. He chose to print it at precisely the moment when the Scots and their allies in the Westminster Assembly and the Long Parliament were pushing hard to instill a Presbyterian church government in England. Although D’Ewes has been called a Presbyterian, his position in this treatise is more in line with the Independents. Speaking in the House of Commons on April 24, 1645, he heatedly opposed a proposal to settle control of admission to the Eucharist in local presbyteries. Besides its importance for the debate on toleration, the historical and theological argument in The Primitive Practise is also valuable for the insights it provides into D’Ewes’s political outlook and his behavior as a Parliamentarian.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.081
Threshold uncertainty score0.162

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0140.024
Scholarly communication0.0060.004
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0040.007
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.195
Teacher spread0.177 · 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

Citations0
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of HistorySame topicHistorical Studies of British IslesFrench-language works237,207