Silent Meeting, A Wonder to the World : Les premiers quakers et le bruit du monde
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Le quakerisme a développé une relation au silence qui était exceptionnelle dans le contexte du protestantisme anglais du xviie siècle – y compris chez les protestants radicaux. Les quakers ont très tôt adopté un recueillement collectif et méditatif connu sous le nom de « réunion silencieuse », qui s’écartait résolument des formes traditionnelles de la liturgie, mais aussi de la culture biblique réformée. Aussitôt accusés de ressusciter l’esprit monastique « en faisant reposer une si grande part de leur religion sur le silence », mais aussi de nourrir le fanatisme ou la léthargie spirituelle, et surtout de promouvoir une forme de religion trop éloignée de la tradition chrétienne, les quakers comme William Britten dans Silent Meeting, A Wonder to the World (1660) ont été contraints de défendre la pertinence théologique et la valeur spirituelle du silence, tentant aussi de communiquer aux Amis autant qu’à leurs adversaires la puissance régénératrice dont ils faisaient l’expérience au cours de leurs assemblées silencieuses.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.015 | 0.013 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 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".