Popularity and Monarchy:The Hampton Court Conferenceand the Early Jacobean Church
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Building on recent reconsiderations of James I's Church policies, this article ties James's performance at the Hampton Court conference to his Scottish experiences, his texts on kingship and what he perceived in the Church of England upon arrival in his new realm. The linking thread is not theology but rather his fervent anti-popularity, bred in his reaction to the Scottish Reformation, rejection of Buchanan's limited monarchy theories and struggles to exert and expand his kingship in Scotland. In England, he found natural allies in a late Elizabethan tradition of anti-popularity. The puritan petitioning campaign for Church reform convinced him that nonconformity equated with popularity and that he had to crush it immediately (as intimated in Basilikon Doron), if he was to be a “free” monarch. At the conference, James made clear that he would have a strong episcopal church as a bulwark protecting his kingship against any popular challenge. The subsequent rigorous conformity campaign and purge of unyielding ministers indicate that far from seeking an irenic compromise, James sought to extirpate any challenge from below to his authority as Supreme Governor.
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 | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.040 | 0.010 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.015 | 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".