MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W575603173 · doi:10.33137/rr.v30i1.9142

Godly Reformers and their Opponents in Early Modern England: Religion in Norwich c. 1560-1643

2006· article· en· W575603173 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Matthew Reynolds, Jonathan Wright

Bibliographic record

VenueRenaissance and Reformation · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicReformation and Early Modern Christianity
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsReignBishopsBoroughHistoryContext (archaeology)English ReformationProtestantismSpanish Civil WarClassicsReligious studiesAncient historyTheologyLawPoliticsPolitical scienceArchaeologyPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This book traces the emergence of religious factionalism within an urban community, from Elizabeth's reign until the outbreak of the English Civil War, focusing upon early modern England's second city, Norwich, but placing it in the context of England as a whole. Typically, Tudor and Stuart Norwich has been viewed as a centre of radical puritanism, but through careful study of its rich municipal archive as well as hitherto untapped diocesan and parochial material, the author offers a more rounded account of Norwich's religious life, which considers the appearance of groups at odds with the godly. The first section explores how and why the Reformation flourished in Norwich. Later chapters address the fortunes of the city's puritan movement in relation to successive anti-Calvinist bishops - notably Samuel Harsnett and Matthew Wren - and their local allies (both clerical and lay) during the 1620s and 30s. Reacting to godly complaint, Norwich's anti-puritan tradition evolved into something approaching 'civic Laudianism' in borough affairs under Charles I.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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 score0.165
Threshold uncertainty score0.329

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0090.011
Scholarly communication0.0040.002
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0010.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.001

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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.205
Teacher spread0.190 · 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

Citations11
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRenaissance and ReformationSame topicReformation and Early Modern ChristianityFrench-language works237,207