Bibliographic record
Abstract
Writing for a popular as well as an academic audience, Mark Stoyle offers a welcome and highly readable new account of the Western Rising of 1549. Perhaps best known as an historian of the seventeenth-century civil wars and of witchcraft, Stoyle here returns to his roots in the West Country and to interests piqued in his youth as a tour guide at Bickleigh Castle, once owned by a loyalist leader involved in the rising. Stoyle’s local knowledge combined with attentive reading of sources, old and new, allows him to craft a good, fresh retelling of the causes, course, and consequences of risings that saw Plymouth taken, Exeter besieged, and a countryside devastated by the fighting and repression. Updating Frances Rose-Troup’s classic 1913 narrative of events often described as the ‘Prayer Book Rebellion’, Stoyle agrees that religion lay at the core of this largely popular revolt while offering a few new details, interpretations, and shifts in emphasis. He concurs with those who have argued that the insurgents from Cornwall and Devon posed a serious threat to Protector Somerset’s regime and even to the progress of the Reformation itself, while chipping away at evidence recently read as suggesting that they posed a socio-economic challenge akin to that of the East Anglian protestors of the same year. He offers new arguments for the significance of Cornish ‘cultural defensiveness’ in spurring some of the protests against the new English-language prayer book and the larger panoply of changes that accompanied it. Stepping back from the local to the national, Stoyle suggests, too, that though the rebels suffered defeat in battle in August, they came close to achieving their aims in the factional political struggles that took place in London in the months following. The book is mainly a narrative retelling, though, not argument-driven. In some respects it complements Andy Wood’s 2007 study of the East Anglian commotions associated with Robert Kett (The 1549 Rebellions and the Making of Early Modern England), but the two books differ significantly in style. While Wood offered arguments situating Kett’s rebellion in the longer history of popular protest and drew on linguistic and other theoretical approaches, Stoyle’s book offers a story.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.017 | 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".