Bibliographic record
Abstract
Several facts about Genesis B set it apart from other Old English works. The first, and most important, is that it at present seems to be the only Old English poem with a clear Old Saxon antecedent. Rather than being an “original” Old English composition, it is what Alger N. Doane calls a “transliteration” — a systematic movement between mutually intelligible dialects. Second, the Saxon Genesis which was “transliterated” into Genesis B can be dated rather precisely and securely to c.850, not long after a closely related text, the Heliand (dated 821-840), fragments of which are found in the same manuscript as the Saxon Genesis. Third, the location of the scriptorium in which the Saxon Genesis and the Heliand were penned has been narrowed down to three places: Fulda (most commonly), Werden, or Essen (less commonly). In other words, we know that the poetic vocabulary of Genesis B is, for the most part, the poetic vocabulary of an Old Saxon poem of the mid-ninth century, most likely composed in the scriptorium at Fulda. The effect of this, as Doane points out, is to draw “the receptor language [Old English] into the intertexts of the donor text [Saxon Genesis].” What, though, are the “intertexts” of a mid-ninth century Old Saxon poem? Are these demonstrably and significantly different from the “intertexts” of other Old English poetry? Through the analysis of two of the more puzzling lexical items in Genesis B— feðerhama and hæleðhelm — I hope to demonstrate how a broad nexus of associations in cognate languages and in the glossarial tradition can at once illuminate and confound our understanding of Old English vocabulary.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 0.002 |
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.
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".