Bibliographic record
Abstract
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.
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 | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.022 | 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".