MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4410087713 · doi:10.33137/rr.v47i4.45371

The Problematical (yet Valuable) Correspondence of a Hunted Heretic: The Case of the Dutch Anabaptist and Spiritualist David Joris (c. 1501–1556)

2025· article· en· W4410087713 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Gary K. Waite

Bibliographic record

VenueRenaissance and Reformation · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicReformation and Early Modern Christianity
Canadian institutionsUniversity of New Brunswick
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAnabaptistsHeresyHistoryPhilosophyTheology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In 1536 the Dutch Anabaptist David Joris (c. 1501–56) was proclaimed an Anabaptist messiah in the aftermath of Anabaptist Münster. When his and his followers’ apocalyptical expectations failed to materialize in late 1538, Joris fled Delft for Antwerp, then in 1544 he fled again to Basel, where he dissimulated successfully until his death. He also moved away from external fulfillment of prophecy to a fully internalized religiosity. Joris maintained contact with a widely diverse following through his missives, over 1,200 of which have survived in three printed editions from the early seventeenth century and at least one manuscript collection. This article conducts a close reading of a small sample of Joris’s late correspondence and some of his more famous missives to help explain why his letters appealed to readers, despite, or because of, their author’s intentionally obscure “spiritualistic” writing style. They offered a sense of belonging to a spiritual elite who could comprehend the meaning of creation and life. They also reveal much about Joris’s supporters as well as the significant shifts in Joris’s thinking.

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)0.002
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.029
Threshold uncertainty score0.060

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0250.017
Scholarly communication0.0080.005
Open science0.0010.004
Research integrity0.0030.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.002

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.

Opus teacher head0.019
GPT teacher head0.254
Teacher spread0.236 · 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
GenreEmpirical

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
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRenaissance and Reformation→Same topicReformation and Early Modern Christianity→French-language works237,207→