Julie Coleman and Anne McDermott (eds.). Historical Dictionaries and Historical Dictionary Research: Papers from the International Conference on Historical Lexicography and Lexicology, at the University of Leicester, 2002
Bibliographic record
Abstract
As announced in the subtitle, the book under review is a collection of conference papers. Its two parts, Dictionary History and Historical Dictionaries, contain, respectively, twelve and six papers. Thirteen of those deal with English lexicography, the remaining five with non-English lexicographic traditions. The authors are academics and/or lexicographers working in Europe, Canada, the United States, and Hong Kong. Ten of the papers are divided into sections with titles but no numbers (and no difference in font size, either, so it is hard to see the hierarchical organisation, if any), while the remaining eight have no internal division; one paper is preceded by an abstract. The volume begins, fittingly, with a beautifully written essay on ‘Du Cange: Lexicography and the Medieval Heritage’ by John Considine. The author shows how, in accordance with Du Cange's intentions, his dictionary of medieval Latin (1678) was a deeply Francocentric endeavour. We also learn of the lexicographer's uncertainty as to whether the development from classical Latin via medieval Latin to French should be construed as a story of decay or one of progress. Despite its rather specialised topic, the article is of more than merely local relevance, referring as it does to other lexicographic traditions besides the French (Dutch, English, Swedish, Canadian Mennonite).
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 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.014 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.012 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.035 | 0.025 |
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".