Bibliographic record
Abstract
This is a book for people who think they know the Society of Jesus.From the sixteenth century onward, many Catholics found its name presumptuous, its theology suspect, and its methods Machiavellian.Protestants could be freer in their invective, and attacked the Jesuits with relish as the pre-eminent Counter-Reformation force: an order sprung fully armed from the head of the Tridentine Zeus, wielding specious logic and slippery ethics, blindly obedient to the papal antichrist, and all too threateningly successful in its missionary activities .Secular histories offered a reheated protestantism without denominational peculiarities, sure of the bigotry of all religious zealots and happy to demonstrate undiscriminating objectivity by consigning both Ignatius and Calvin to the same ash heap.The Jesuits responded with in-house hagiographies whose uncritical and iiimioderate praise for the Society and its members seemed only to confirm the worst suspicions ofthe critics.The invective has cooled, but the stereotype Ungers.To adopt John Bossy's terminology, the Jesuits are often assumed to be models of the world-oriented, obedience-ordered, clerically-directed "Christianity Translated" that replaces the more conmiunitarian, sacramental, and lay-oriented "Tradi- tional Christianity" of the pre-Reformation period.But are they?John O' Malley does not directly engage the Society ' s historical or current critics,
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.091 | 0.029 |
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".