CATHERINE E. KARKOV, The Ruler Portraits of Anglo-Saxon England. Pp. viii+209 (Anglo-Saxon Studies 3). Woodbridge, Suffolk: Boydell Press, 2004. 55.00 (ISBN 1 84383 059 0).
Bibliographic record
Abstract
CATHERINE KARKOV has established herself as one of the foremost expositors of Anglo-Saxon art, and so it was with great anticipation that I delved into her recent consideration of ruler imagery in the tenth and eleventh centuries. Although there are many virtues in this book, some fundamental reservations lead me to conclude that it is not the strongest among Karkov's important contributions to our understanding of Anglo-Saxon art and culture. Royal figures throughout the Middle Ages frequently communicated the nature of their kingship via images. Particularly pertinent for the Anglo-Saxon kings were venerable Roman traditions, many of which were filtered through the Byzantines and Carolingians; contemporary Ottonians also provided an important counterpoint. Karkov admits that she can do no more than provide a brief précis of this important subject in her introduction, though it is serviceable. Still, citing Henry Mayr-Harting's book on Ottonian manuscript illumination, rather than the fundamental article by Josef Déer on the Lothar Cross, or continuing to place the Prayerbook of Otto III in Pommersfelden, rather than in the Munich Staatsbibliothek (its home since 1995, as Clm. 30111), does little to inspire confidence. Nevertheless, Karkov perceptively notes important differences between the continental and Anglo-Saxon examples – the former tended to focus on royal majesty in a liturgical setting, while the latter emphasized authorship and piety in manuscripts decidedly historical in nature.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.033 | 0.010 |
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".