MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1981875175 · doi:10.1093/notesj/gjl002

Latin Sources of the Old English Phoenix

2006· article· en· W1981875175 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueNotes and Queries · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicMedieval Literature and History
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPhoenixPoetryParallelsLiteratureInterpretation (philosophy)Old EnglishArtReading (process)PhilosophyHistoryClassicsLinguisticsArchaeologyEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

SINCE J. J. Conybeare translation of Lactantius’ 170-line Carmen de aue phoenice, no Phoenix critic has failed to note the debt the Anglo-Saxon poet owes to that Latin text.1 Compelling evidence now suggests that the Phoenix-poet also used elements from three other Latin poems: Blossius Aemilus Dracontius’ De laudibus dei; Alcimus Ecdicius Avitus’ De origine mundi; and Flauius Cresconius Corippus’ In laudem Iustini Augusti minoris. Dracontius’ and Avitus’ poems have clear connections with the opening of The Phoenix because of their references to Eden's flowers, fragrance, and ever-hanging fruit. Avitus’ description of Eden as closed to sinners also prompts a reading of lines 3b–6 that differs from Alfred Bammesberger's recent interpretation.2 As well, Corippus’ description of the crowning of Justin II has suggestive parallels with the Anglo-Saxon poem. These textual overlaps suggest that the Phoenix-poet does not simply expand the Carmen de aue phoenice; he carefully selects, translates, and integrates lines from a number of Christian Latin poems.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.984
Threshold uncertainty score0.412

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.176
Teacher spread0.165 · 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