Bibliographic record
Abstract
Before taking a closer look at the online, open-access presence of the Catholic Record Society (CRS), it is worth briefly considering its history, which stretches well beyond the present digital age.For almost 120 years, the CRS has been publishing a wide variety of archival documents pertaining to the "long" early modern Catholic history of England and Wales.Traditional historiography sees the end to early modern Catholicism in Britain in 1829, when the Catholic Emancipation Act lifted the remaining legal proscription of Catholicism.CRS publications routinely venture into the nineteenth century and occasionally even beyond the 1829 cut-off date, such as volumes 77 (the correspondence of John Lingard) and 85 (the correspondence of Alexander Goss) of its records series.While always in pursuit of scholarly excellence, the early decades of the Society were defined by its confessional bias and hagiographic approach to the Catholic past.In the early twentieth century, a scholarly book series of sources relating to post-Reformation Catholic history would not have been possible had the members of the Catholic community themselves not taken special pride and interest in the lives of their persecuted forefathers.At the time, British Catholic history was on the margins of the discipline.So while the main aim of CRS was to preserve and publish scattered primary sources for future historians, the impulse to overtly celebrate the heroic age of recusancy-"when English Catholics took their lives in their hands and kept the faith in spite of the rack and the gibbet" 1 -was an integral part of the project's early decades.The years following the Second World War saw the expansion of CRS's publications portfolio-the records series was joined by a journal and a monograph series-and several shifts in its identity and scholarly focus.This is best represented by the metamorphoses of its flagship journal.In 1951, CRS began publishing Biographical Studies of English Catholics, which was renamed Recusant History in 1959.The journal's strictly prosopographic writing gave way to historical research focusing on a community, whose defining characteristic was recusancy: a sustained refusal to attend Protestant worship in spite of heavy 1.Gasquet, introduction to Miscellanea 1, viii.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.888 | 0.798 |
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; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.
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".