From traditional to electronic lexicography
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
The aim of this article is to review the standard dictionaries of Old English from the perspective of the evolution from traditional lexicography to electronic lexicography and to fnd the similarities and diferences, together with their pros and cons. The ultimate purpose is to fnd which of these four dictionaries is more suitable for linguistic research in Old English for scholars in the feld. An Anglo-Saxon Dictionary (Bosworth and Toller in Oxford University Press, Oxford, 1973), The Student’s Dictionary of Anglo-Saxon (Sweet in Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1976), A Concise Anglo-Saxon Dictionary (Hall in University of Toronto Press, Toronto, 1996) and The Dictionary of Old English in Electronic Form A–G (Healey et al. in Dictionary of Old English Project, Centre for Medieval Studies, University of Toronto, Toronto, 2008) are examined with respect to headwords, alternative spellings and cross-references, vowel quantity and textual evidence.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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) | 0.008 | 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 it