MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4381743014 · doi:10.1017/stc.2023.11

The Impact of Legislative Reform on Baptisms, Marriages and Burials 1836–52, with particular reference to London

2023· article· en· W4381743014 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
W. M. Jacob

Bibliographic record

VenueStudies in Church History · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicAmerican Constitutional Law and Politics
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLegislationBaptismSecularizationQuarter (Canadian coin)PopulationPoliticsContext (archaeology)LegislatureLawPolitical scienceHistorySociologyDemographyArchaeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article considers, with particular reference to London, the impact of legislation during the second quarter of the nineteenth century on the churches’ practice of rites of passage in relation to births, marriages and deaths. It investigates the religious, political and social reasons for legislation relating to these rites which many contemporaries and subsequent historians considered an attack on the Church of England and evidence of advancing secularization. It shows that despite significant constitutional, social and religious changes during these years, religiously motivated politicians, sympathetic to the established church, achieved legislation introducing general registration of births, marriages and deaths, and providing for more satisfactory burial of London's rapidly growing population in the context of a high death rate. While satisfying some grievances of religious Dissenters, this protected the established church's interests, and evidence suggests that a high proportion of London's population continued to access its rites of passage for baptism, marriage and burial.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.010
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.180
Threshold uncertainty score0.358

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.010
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0040.007
Scholarly communication0.0040.002
Open science0.0010.004
Research integrity0.0030.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.096
GPT teacher head0.390
Teacher spread0.294 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueStudies in Church HistorySame topicAmerican Constitutional Law and PoliticsFrench-language works237,207