MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2607075039 · doi:10.1075/nowele.70.1.01get

Old English mānwrǣce and godwrǣce, with an emendation of Elene 811b

2017· article· en· W2607075039 on OpenAlexaff
Robert Getz

Bibliographic record

VenueNOWELE North-Western European Language Evolution · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicLinguistics and language evolution
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAdjectiveLinguisticsElement (criminal law)Old EnglishLiteratureMeaning (existential)HistoryPhilosophyArtNounLawPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The transmitted in line 811b of the Old English poemEleneby Cynewulf has been generally regarded as representing an otherwise unattested adjectivemānweorccomposite ofmān‘crime’ andweorc‘work’. Sinceweorcis unparalleled and unexpected as a second element in an adjectival compound, an alternative explanation of the manuscript reading is proposed here, scribal alteration of an adjective otherwise attested only in the First Cleopatra Glossary, occurring there in the written form . While this adjective is listed under various headword forms in dictionaries, it is probably to be described asmānwrǣce(Anglianmānwrēce), having the same second element as another adjective in which Old English -wrǣcehas often been misunderstood,godwrǣce‘impious’. The origin of -wrǣceis a Germanic verbal adjective in -i-/-ja- derived from the etymon of Old Englishwrecan‘drive’; the original meaning ofmānwrǣcemay thus have been ‘perpetrating crime’. , corresponding to the Anglian form that Cynewulf would have used inElene811b, would have been susceptible to alteration to by a copyist unfamiliar with the word, as comparable instances of scribal transposition of elements suggest.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.020
Threshold uncertainty score0.066

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.003
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0000.002
Research integrity0.0010.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0200.009

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.

Opus teacher head0.014
GPT teacher head0.225
Teacher spread0.211 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNOWELE North-Western European Language EvolutionSame topicLinguistics and language evolutionFrench-language works237,207