Reforming the Law of Nature: The Secularization of Political Thought, 1532–1689. <i>By Simon P. Kennedy</i>
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Simon Kennedy’s interesting and erudite Reforming the Law of Nature follows a narrow path through a very broad historical thicket. Kennedy’s interest is the “desacralization” or “secularization of political thought during the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries” (p. 1). The topic is immense, and so Kennedy limits himself to one “contributing” factor in this process: the role played by the Reformed theological tradition in recasting natural law accounts of the origin of political life. Kennedy’s method is not to broadly survey the Reformed tradition for consensus positions, seeking transitions in how natural law was understood or taught within that tradition. Instead, he adopts the “emblematic thinkers” approach that is common in the history of political theory. Surveying a succession of major thinkers in this way can be interpretively perilous, in that the approach usually deploys a retrospective definition of the canon of important figures, often to presume rather than to demonstrate direct influence from one thinker to another.
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 | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.014 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.014 | 0.004 |
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".