MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4395485060 · doi:10.1093/ehr/ceae053

The Madman and the Church Robber: Law and Conflict in Early Modern England, by Jason Peacey

2024· article· en· W4395485060 on OpenAlexaff
Tim Stretton

Bibliographic record

VenueThe English Historical Review · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicAmerican Constitutional Law and Politics
Canadian institutionsSaint Mary's University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLawPhilosophyPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Beginning in the 1560s, a lease of the 100-acre estate of Warrens Court in Nibley in Gloucestershire became the subject of legal wrangling that persisted for over a century. Jason Peacey’s virtuoso investigation of this dispute answers the questions: why did successive interest holders invest disproportionate resources contesting their rights to it, and why did their actions fascinate a broader public? The chief protagonists in the dispute, the MP and author of The Lives of the Berkeleys, John Smyth—the ‘church robber’—and the Bristol merchant Benjamin Crokey—‘the madman’—left behind voluminous evidence, in addition to litigation records, allowing Peacey to uncover ideological and religious tensions behind their expressed motivations. Both men’s claims to Warrens Court came via marriage, and it is telling that the archival record left by the women involved, such as Katherine Powell and Grace Drew, is thin. However, Smyth kept detailed correspondence and notes of his tactics and expenditures, while Crokey printed and circulated petitions, broadsheets and tracts pressing his cause and then, as his frustrations mounted, calling for law reform.

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)0.009
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.094
Threshold uncertainty score0.188

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.005
Science and technology studies0.0080.010
Scholarly communication0.0090.010
Open science0.0010.004
Research integrity0.0050.008
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.281
Teacher spread0.264 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractno

Explore more

Same venueThe English Historical ReviewSame topicAmerican Constitutional Law and PoliticsFrench-language works237,207