MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2805307445 · doi:10.1093/library/19.2.131

The Biblical Genealogies of the King James Bible (1611): Their Purpose, Sources, and Significance

2018· article· en· W2805307445 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Library · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicReformation and Early Modern Christianity
Canadian institutionsTrinity College
Fundersnot available
KeywordsScholarshipAudience measurementContext (archaeology)ThrivingHistoryReading (process)LiteratureClassicsGenealogySociologyArtPhilosophyLinguisticsLawSocial scienceArchaeologyPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract This article provides a systematic analysis of the genealogies prefixed to the King James Bible (1611), giving the first examination of their contemporary significance and purpose, as well as the collaboration between the Hebraist Hugh Broughton and the cartographer John Speed that produced them. By placing the diagrams within the context of Speed and Broughton's greater interests, as well as through the use of several previously unstudied drafts, it will show that the genealogies had a clear polemical function, emerged from a subsidiary of the thriving field of chronology, and can be placed within a longstanding visual tradition capable of explaining many of the peculiarities on which modern scholars have remained silent. Finally, it will argue that the genealogies were an ingenious kind of ‘reading technology’ produced through a synthesis of sacred and secular scholarship that aimed to transmit the products of learned, neo-Latin scholarship to an unlearned, English readership.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.714
Threshold uncertainty score0.823

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.030
GPT teacher head0.202
Teacher spread0.171 · 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