Justifying Revolution: The American Clergy’s Argument for Political Resistance, 1750–1776. By Gary L. Steward
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The role of colonial American clergy in furthering the cause and course of the American Revolution, especially in the deeply religious culture of New England, has been a matter of scholarly discussion and dispute since the nineteenth century. Because the place of Christianity in the founding of the American republic has been central to the debate over whether the United States was established as a so-called “Christian nation,” an academic question has also become a significant political controversy. In Justifying Revolution, Gary Steward largely eschews the latter, focusing very single-mindedly on clerical thought, particularly with regard to political resistance and how and why so many came to support it. Yet in making his case, Steward further seeks to counter the arguments of major historians, including Bernard Bailyn, Mark Noll, Nathan Hatch, and George Marsden, who have emphasized the role of “real Whig” and republican thought in shaping and escalating a radical resistance ideology that led to revolution.
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 | 0.004 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.011 | 0.014 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.010 | 0.010 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 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".