MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3041204212 · doi:10.33137/rr.v39i1.8895

The English Reformation: Religion and Cultural Adaptation

2003· article· en· W3041204212 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Norman L. Jones, Seymour Baker House

Bibliographic record

VenueRenaissance and Reformation · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicReformation and Early Modern Christianity
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAdaptation (eye)English ReformationHistorySociologyPhilosophyReligious studiesPsychologyProtestantismNeuroscience

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Norman Jones continues his nuanced investigations into the social history of the English Reformation, this time through a series of case studies of various headings ranging from the family and communities to the post-Reformation world view.Jones is one of our best observers of the Tudor century with its myriad shifts and ironies: his analyses disclose a precise and practiced archivist coupled with a writer of particular flair with an eye for telling details.Jones deftly walks us through a wide cross-section of reactions, adaptations, and innovations to the religious changes of the sixteenth century from Henry VIII to Elizabeth I.Among many strengths, this work tracks changes over generations, and Jones delights in introducing us to the devils in the details.We read with interest, for example, how the abolition of obits under Edward VI had little effect on the ability of the fellows of Merton College to collect bequests left to them under the old system, or how two stalwart antagonists -Thomas More and Christopher St.German -attempted to fuse law and conscience in their jurisprudence.Particularly interesting is the short chapter treating the post-Reformation world view; here Jones sets himself a daunting challenge, and his succinct conclusion should be read by all students of Tudor history: the key, or "accidental genius" of the Elizabethan Settlement was flexibility.

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 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 score0.965
Threshold uncertainty score0.947

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 studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.002
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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.222
Teacher spread0.198 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations4
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRenaissance and ReformationSame topicReformation and Early Modern ChristianityFrench-language works237,207