Bibliographic record
Abstract
Renaissance and Reformation—partners or enemies? The popular image of these two historical phenomena is one of opposition and contradiction: the Renaissance was a cultural revival influenced by classical philosophy; the Reformation was a radical religious movement which rejected traditional authority. But in the life and work of Peter Martyr Vermigli, a "Calvinist Thomist" and the leading sixteenth-century Italian Reformer, scholasticism and Protestantism converge. An international conference, sponsored by the Faculty of Religious Studies, McGill University, reflects the recent renewed interest in Italian reform. Entitled "The Cultural Impact of Italian Reformers," its aim was to gather Vermigli scholars along with Renaissance and Reformation scholars. Half the essays (by Paul Grendler, Cesare Vasoli, Rita Belladonna, Anthony Santosuosso, and Antonio D'Andrea) deal with the general question of Renaissance and Reformation interaction: How are humanism and scholasticism related? Marvin Anderson, Philip McNair, J. Patrick Donnelly, Robert Kingdon, and Joseph C. McLelland focus on the thought and activity of Vermigli himself. Students of theology, history, and philosophy, and specifically of the Renaissance and the Reformation, will welcome this book.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 0.009 |
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; both teacher heads 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".