Bibliographic record
Abstract
The late Leslie Barnard published biographies of several noted scholar-bishops of the early eighteenth century—John Potter (1989), Thomas Secker (1998), and Thomas Herring (2006). This book, published posthumously and edited by Daniel Reed, with an introduction by William Gibson, presents Dr Barnard’s work on Joseph Bingham, sometime Fellow of University College, Oxford, and subsequently, following a controversial sermon on the Trinity, incumbent of two Hampshire parishes. Bingham was best known for his monumental Origines Ecclesiasticae (1708–22), a comprehensive account of the customs, usages, and practices of the church, but he also deployed his considerable patristic learning in debates on lay baptism, schemes for the comprehension of Dissenters into the Church of England, the reconciliation of episcopacy and Presbyterianism, and the claims of the Roman Catholic Church. There are some tantalizing references to Bingham’s work as a parish priest and a couple of paragraphs on his manuscript sermons, but this book focuses almost entirely on the heavyweight scholarship of ‘the foremost student of Christian antiquity of his day’. Bringing a collection of working papers together into a posthumous volume, and doing so with a minimum of intrusive editorial intervention, is a challenging task, so Dr Reed and Professor Gibson are to be warmly congratulated for making available this study of a scholar whose prodigious learning did not bring him the preferment enjoyed by more fortunate, if less able, contemporaries.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.002 |
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".