Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract By the middle of the sixth century, in Byzantine perspective, Britain had so long since ceased to be part of the empire of the Romans as to have become a kind of never-land, some part of the known world, but also the sort of place of which it was possible to credit the fabulous. Information was scarce. Nevertheless, the chief source for the sixth-century east-Roman regime in Constantinople, Procopius (c. 500 -565 CE), met a group of Anglo-Saxons c. 540, who were contemporaries of Beowulf’s king Hygelac; and Procopius may have learned from hoi Angiloi something about the Old English poetry, at a particularly important point in its formation, before the beginning of the conversion of the English to Christianity in 597 CE. Procopius’s English informants told him a tale (of the vengeful Anglo-Saxon bride of a Frisian basileos named Radigis) of a type consonant with later examples of Old English poetry; also, with an historical basis that coincides with the historical milieu to which the earliest Old English heroic poetry also refers, including Beowulf.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
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".