Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This collection, published under the same title as the 1981 University of Toronto Press volume that it hopes to supersede, grew out of a conference at Harvard University. Thirteen contributors reconsider the dating of Beowulf , and each of them concludes or accepts that Beowulf was composed in the eighth century. As the singular noun of the subtitle suggests, this Dating of ‘Beowulf’ is less a report from the field than a concerted provocation. Leonard Neidorf’s polemical introduction traces a selective history of the debate over the dating of the poem. Neidorf sorts Beowulf scholarship into two bins: studies pursuing ‘affinities between the poem and a given period of Anglo-Saxon history’ (p. 3) and those relying on ‘hard evidence’ (p. 4) with ‘probabilistic force’ (p. 16). This volume will enable the dating of Beowulf ‘to be based in reasoning rather than divination’ (p. 17), the somewhat brash implication being that most prior research has been on the side of faith, not science.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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 it