Bibliographic record
Abstract
Hannah More is widely viewed as a major figure in the rise of evangelicalism, but how she played her role is still in doubt. She can be read as a conservative interested in maintaining social hierarchy or even as a radical who levels social strata by insisting that only spiritual classifications are important. An underlying network of theological uncertainties in More’s writing creates this divide in the criticism of her work. More insists on the plainness of the Bible, but, since readers nonetheless err, she suggests its plainness must first be matched in the reader in order for the text to be understood. She contradictorily indicates that the Bible or morally sound fictional works may improve the reader and that readers must already be purified before a text can have saving effects. On the one hand, this theological ambiguity can be liberating. On the other hand, the Pauline universalizing rhetoric on which More relies, rather than having the salutary impact recently described by philosophers Giorgio Agamben and Alain Badiou, creates a constant interrogation of self and others in order to reduce individual particularity. More’s fiction continually figures forth the need for an “annihilation of the self” that is to be admired for its saving power and yet also pitied for the suffering it creates—suffering which is the vehicle of both that annihilation and attendant salvation.
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 | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.016 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 0.002 |
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".