Bibliographic record
Abstract
The sudden surge in English translations of Erasmus’ Apophthegmata during the later years of Henry VIII ’s reign can be partly attributed to the gradual introduction of the new standards set by the humanist educational agenda and partly to the profound political and religious changes brought about by the English Reformation that was codified in the Act of Supremacy in 1534. Richard Taverner’s The garden of wysdom and The second booke of the Garden of wysedome (1539) and Nicholas Udall’s Apophthegmes (1542) reveal a pronounced shift towards a more widely conceived education of the English public. While Taverner’s translation, with its overt political commentary, provided a morally instructive commonplace book, marked by a Protestant overtone and influenced by Luther’s and Melanchthon’s views, Udall’s extensive pedagogical notes were meant to disseminate new methods of instruction modelled on Erasmus’ De ratione studii . Albeit in notably different ways, Udall’s and Taverner’s promotion of classical culture through apophthegms reflected their humanist zeal to reshape existing moral and cultural ideals and to expand the codes of conduct of the reformed Christian commonwealth in England.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".