heather o'donoghue. Skaldic Verse and the Poetics of Saga Narrative. Pp. 256. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005. £50.00.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
O'Donoghue's monograph on the role of skaldic verse in its narrative contexts is her second contribution to scholarship in the field of Old Norse prosimetrum. Traditionally, the relationship of verse to prose in the various genres of Old Norse saga narratives has been approached from a literary–historical perspective, within the framework of attempts to elucidate the origins and development of the mixed prose form in Old Norse saga literature. O'Donoghue engaged with this debate in her earlier book The Genesis of a Saga Narrative: Verse and Prose in Kormaks Saga (OUP, 1991), but the primary aim of her new work is to illustrate the range of artistic and rhetorical effects that the shift from prose to the heightened discourse of skaldic verse has on saga narratives. In her introduction, O'Donoghue reviews past considerations of the relationship between genre and the mode of verse quotation in prosimetric texts: for the most part, historical saga narratives cite skaldic stanzas as documentary or corroborative evidence, whereas verses in the family sagas are incorporated as the dramatic, direct speech of a character within the diegetic world of the narrative. However, scholars have drawn attention to the fact that historical saga narratives sometimes work in skaldic stanzas as dialogue, and conversely, how verses that fulfil a primarily corroborative function are occasionally found in family saga narratives. The problematic nexus or interface between historicity and fictionality (or littérarité, as O'Donoghue calls it) in Old Norse saga narratives adds another layer of complexity to the issue, and one of O'Donoghue's central concerns in the first two chapters is to examine the extent to which the mode of verse quotation, with its attendant artistic and rhetorical effects, contributes to the interplay of the two modes—historical and fictional—in individual texts.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.097 | 0.028 |
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".