Edward Herbert’s <i>A Dialogue between a Tutor and his Pupil</i> , and Karl Ludwig, Elector of the Palatinate
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A hitherto unnoted manuscript of A Dialogue between a Tutor and his Pupil (Kassel 2° Ms. philos. 12) puts beyond doubt that it is a canonical work of Edward, Lord Herbert of Cherbury. The Dialogue offers the most radical presentation of Herbert’s thoughts on religious pluralism, and the emendations in the Kassel manuscript show the original composition was even bolder than that found in other manuscripts and finally published in 1768. The provenance of the manuscript is also significant: it survived in the collection of Karl Ludwig I, Elector Palatine (1617–80), grandson of King James I. He nearly certainly obtained the manuscript during his extended stay in England in the 1640s, and it reflects his relationship with Herbert and a wide range of major (and often radical) English thinkers of the 1640s. Finally, his policy of religious toleration during his direct rule of the Palatinate is consistent with Herbert’s ideas.
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 | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| 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".