Pre-Conquest manuscripts from Malmesbury Abbey and John Leland's letter to Beatus Rhenanus concerning a lost copy of Tertullian's works
Bibliographic record
Abstract
According to the treatise which he presented as a New Year's Gift to King Henry VIII in January 1546, the English antiquary John Leland ( c. 1503-52) received ‘a moste gracyouse commyssion’ from the monarch in 1533 ‘to peruse and dylygentlye to searche all the lybraryes of Monasteryes and collegies of thys your noble realme’. As he travelled from monastery to monastery he compiled lists of books, some brief, some considerably more thorough. Leland had a strong interest in pre-Conquest writings and his lists testify both to lost exemplars of known texts and to otherwise unattested writings from the early period. His principles of selection were not always consistent, however, and on occasion he omitted manuscripts of historical or literary interest which he must have seen: in no sense was he setting out to be a cataloguer as such. Ultimately his enterprise was a bibliographical one and he envisaged a volume in four books, De uiris illustribus siue de scriptoribus Britannicis , of which ‘the seconde is from the tyme of Augustyne, unto the aduente of the Normanes’. The original draft of the De uiris illustribus was composed around 1535/6 – it was in part a response to Polydore Vergil's Anglica Historia published in Basel by John Bebel in 1534 – but after this burst of activity there was a gap of almost ten years before Leland's next major phase of composition.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.061 | 0.011 |
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".