Bibliographic record
Abstract
Calvinism was a term first used by Calvin’s opponents. Calvinism has become a widely used label to describe the ideas adopted by Reformed churches across Europe. Some writers prefer to use the label “Reformed” or “Reformed Protestant” to describe a movement that owed much to the insights of a range of reformers and was certainly not solely reliant on John Calvin’s leadership. Calvinism was distinctive among 16th-century reform movements because of particular ideas about God’s plan for the salvation of humanity, about the meaning and celebration of the sacraments, and about the danger posed by idolatry. Calvinism spread quickly across the Continent during the middle decades of the 16th century as a dynamic and transnational reform movement. International connections were maintained by contacts between reformers and Reformed churches. A strong sense of belonging to an international religious community was felt by many Calvinists, and in particular by exiles and refugees fleeing religious persecution. There were differences between the beliefs and practices of Reformed churches in a range of distinct political and social contexts. Reformed communities in France and the Netherlands had to fight for the right to worship. This gave Calvinism a certain reputation for political radicalism. However, Calvinism also received the support of monarchs and princes in parts of the Holy Roman Empire, Central Europe, and the British Isles. Different Reformed churches developed a variety of structures. One important institution in many churches was the consistory, used to promote moral and social discipline. Historians and theologians have examined the nature of Calvinist ideas, the dynamic growth of Calvinism, the international character of Calvinism, and the complex impact of Calvinism on the political and cultural history of diverse European societies from Ulster to Transylvania.
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 | 0.007 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.041 | 0.011 |
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".