Bibliographic record
Abstract
FOR a short and exegetically simple text, the Old English translation of the Homiliary of Angers preserved in the Taunton Fragment (Taunton, Somerset County Record Office, DD/SAS C/1193/77) exhibits a remarkable number of unconventional forms.1 Despite the availability of ten Latin witnesses fully or partially overlapping with the Old English translation, it is not always possible to determine what word the scribe or translator intended.2 Three major reasons for the uncertainty about some forms are the orthographic practices of the Taunton Fragment, the use of low-frequency lexis, and the discrepancies between the Old English translation and the identified Latin versions.3 One of the forms that has so far defied a definitive explanation is begihti (8.10). None of the three analyses that have been suggested for it—a garbled form of beh̅dig, behygdig ‘anxious’; a past participle of the verb behātan ‘to promise, vow, threaten’; and a corruption of beginde, an unattested present participle of the verb bīgan ‘to bend’—fully accounts for its orthography and meaning.4 The present note proposes an alternative interpretation that derives begihti from the verb be-hyhtan ‘to trust in, place one’s hope or faith in’. This derivation is based on the Old English / orthographic variation and the potential misreading of the Latin participle confessus (< confiteor ‘to confess’) as confisus (< confido ‘to trust’) either in the process of translation into Old English or in the process of the transmission of the Latin version of the homiliary.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.019 | 0.003 |
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".