Bishop Gilbert Burnet and Latitudinarian Episcopal Opposition to the Occasional Conformity Bills, 1702-1704
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Since 1689 two factions, the Latitudinarians and the High Church party, had been fighting an occasionally vicious war for control of the Church of England. The main sources of friction between them, which were connected, were orthodoxy and the place of the Protestant Dissenters in English religious life: the High Church party accused the Latitudinarians of heterodoxy and of downplaying the doctrinal differences between Anglicans and Dissenters in order to achieve a comprehension with the Dissenters. The occasional conformity controversy arose out of this ongoing feud. Between 1702 and 1704 three bills were introduced into the English House of Commons to prevent Dissenters from taking communion in an Anglican church often enough to qualify for public office. None of these bills passed in the House of Lords. Gilbert Burnet, bishop of Salisbury, and the other Latitudinarian bishops, were crucial to the failure of these bills and opposed them because they represented an attack on both comprehension and toleration, which they believed together formed the traditional policy of the Church of England towards Dissenters.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.014 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| 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".