Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Anglo-Saxons had a sophisticated and complex sense of history. That much is agreed upon by most Anglo-Saxonists today. The exact nature of this sense of the past, however, remains elusive and contradictory. The issue has been addressed repeatedly, not without significant results. Scholarship on this matter usually takes one of two paths which could be labelled ‘Bede’ and ‘Beowulf.’ The first approach sees Bede, in his Historia ecclesiastica gentis Anglorum, as the Anglo-Saxon representative of ‘standard’ early medieval historiography (together with Isidore of Seville, Gregory of Tours, and others), whose sense of the past was heavily informed by Latinate and Christian sensibilities, but who works with native material. The second sees Beowulf as the source of an original Anglo-Saxon understanding of history rooted in the legendary historical consciousness of Germanic heroic verse. For Bede (but also Ælfric or Alfred), history is a teleological (because divine) process of salvation of an entire gens — thus, historiography becomes a kind of “historical theology.” For the anonymous poets of Beowulf, The Fight at Finnsburg, and Waldere, history entails both re-creating the ancient world of the heroic age and, at the same time, mourning its passing, though it also involves negotiating present realities with its help. Most scholars agree that there is a disjunction between these two cultural horizons and choose one or the other for framing their subject of enquiry. Under these conditions, modern understanding of the greater spectrum of Anglo-Saxon attitudes towards history is bound to be fragmented. There have been attempts to bridge this gap and to counter the assumption that ‘Bede’ and ‘Beowulf’ are antagonistic approaches to history (or, indeed, that they are the only possible ones), yet even the most extensive study to date still works with this dichotomy.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.013 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.013 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".