Bibliographic record
Abstract
Richard Hooker apparently addressed the doctrine of predestination infrequently; his words on predestination, nonetheless, raised considerable alarm at the time among his opponents and critics. This conflict signals that the topic is an important one, but there is less than consensus on what position Hooker held on predestination and on whether there is evidence that it developed or changed during his public career. Recently, Hooker's view in the 1580s has been seen as anticipating that of the Dutch scholar James Arminius. His treatment of election in The Lawes of Ecclesiasticall Politie in the 1590s has similarly been interpreted as tending to a view of predestination based on human appropriation of grace and accompanying human works, although Hooker probably "held himself back" from disclosing his full opinion because of a de facto censorship on this topic imposed in the 1590s. Again, Hooker has been seen as coming close, at the end of his life, "to espousing an Arminian doctrine," "despite the reservations about this which still lingered from his earlier indoctrination in Calvinist doctrine.”
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.020 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.008 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".