Bibliographic record
Abstract
comptes rendus 197 with the Edwardian view of Eucharistic presence (157).She proceeds to develop her thesis by demonstrating the establishment and continuity of Eucharistic theology, from Cranmer's figurative interpretation of spiritual presence in the 1549 Book of Common Prayer to its recapitulation in the Elizabethan Settlement in 1559.From this, she concludes that the return of the English exiles from Geneva in 1559 did not contribute to the theological landscape of the Elizabethan era.Allen's work successfully examines the three critical texts of the Eucharistic debate and properly places them in the theological and political world of Tudor England.Her most notable strength is the skill to extrapolate the arguments of Cranmer and Gardiner from the texts and to pinpoint the inconsistencies and ruptures in each of their arguments.She also successfully captures the political intrigue of Henry VIII's court and persuasively demonstrates the connection between that and the personal ambitions even of religious, spiritual men.This work is an essential addition to the library of any scholar or student of theology or church history and is especially recommended for those interested in the intersection between religion and politics in the early modern period.
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 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.011 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.015 | 0.006 |
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".