MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1488388134 · doi:10.3138/flor.17.008

Ælfric's Use of his Sources in the Preface to Genesis, together with a Conspectus of Biblical and Patristic Sources and Analogues

2000· article· en· W1488388134 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Mark Griffith

Bibliographic record

VenueFlorilegium · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicMedieval Literature and History
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsExegesisInterpretation (philosophy)LiteratureNew TestamentPhilosophyImmediacyMeaning (existential)TorahStyle (visual arts)Biblical studiesComposition (language)ArtClassicsHistoryEpistemologyTheologyLinguisticsJudaism

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The preface to Genesis by Ælfric which, in three surviving manuscripts, precedes either his translation of the first half of Genesis or the OE Hexateuch, is an independent composition in the form of a letter to "Ælfric's patron, the ealdormanta Æthelweard. The immediacy of the circumstances which gave rise to this letter, the directness of its epistolary style, and the inclusion of some autobiographical material may give the impression that it is an original piece of writing. Perhaps because of this, no systematic study of its sources has ever been made and its editors have been content to point out only the obvious quotations from the first chapter of Genesis and the allusions to other parts of the Pentateuch. However, the introduction to the symbolic interpretation of the Old Testament which forms the main body of the letter is heavily dependent on Biblical exegesis known to Ælfric. It is the purpose of this article to examine his use of scripture and patristics in this text, showing in particular how these sources cast light on the meaning of the preface.

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)0.004
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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.032

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0030.003
Scholarly communication0.0030.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0100.002

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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.202
Teacher spread0.177 · 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

Citations4
Published2000
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFlorilegiumSame topicMedieval Literature and HistoryFrench-language works237,207