Literature, protestantism, and the idea of community
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Protestant community is articulated through liturgy, history, and drama. Liturgy teaches communal bonds and scripts their enactment, while narrative and dramatic depictions of the collective past appeal to the imagination of readers and viewers. Liturgy and literature are joined by the participation they invite, which engages parishioners, readers, and audiences with questions of affiliation and collectivity. Lack of attention to the ways Renaissance texts pondered over and produced bonds of commonality has sidetracked us from the communal nature of the period. We need to reevaluate such bonds to better understand how English culture imagined relationships between individual and community, and between people and institutions---including church and theatre. When orthodox writing is treated as doctrine and praxis, and not as a means for political indoctrination, we gain a different understanding of the potential for human relationships, one more generous and reciprocal than the model of coercion that has dominated literary studies. Such reciprocity is found in Church of England liturgy, and in the imaginative space of Foxe's Acts and Monuments, which seeks to forge the Protestant community through an ethics of reading. Imaginative space was also a public space, and Shakespeare's King John and Marlowe's The Massacre at Paris reflect upon religious affiliation in moments of war and atrocity; both plays represent very tangled lines of identification that do not endorse Catholic-Protestant factions but undo them. Religious writing and public theatre explored the precarious balance between community and individual, offering readers and audiences a vehicle for thinking about their own immediate lives and their sense of belonging.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.030 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.001 |
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.
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".