Domestic religion in seventeenth century English Gentry Households
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This research focuses on domestic religion: those activities through which everyday devotion and the worship of God were performed. It encompasses both the daily communal practices of family religion (prayer, psalm singing, catechising and sermon repetition) and the personal devotions of individuals (prayer, mediation and self-examination) in domestic space. It also considers the extraordinary religious practices of preparation for communion, days of fasting and humiliation, and the experience of sickness and death. The textuality of domestic religion is highlighted in a chapter on reading and writing. The published prescriptive advice is related to the reality of lived experience as revealed through the archives of seventeenth century families, most significantly those of the Harleys of Brampton Bryan in Herefordshire. Domestic religion was a highly complex contiguous cycle of enmeshed interrelated practices. The links were not only between domestic practices but also with public worship. A related theme challenges the supposed interiority of Protestant, and more particularly Puritan, piety, as it highlights the sociable nature of domestic religion. Domestic religion provides a useful lens throughout to explore consensus and division in seventeenth century religious politics and culture. The domestic religion was vital in the construction and projection of family identity.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".