MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2913651581 · doi:10.1093/fs/knz014

<i>The Abingdon Apocalypse (British Library, Add. 24555)</i> . Edited by <scp>Daron Burrows</scp> <i>The Abingdon Apocalypse (British Library, Add. 24555)</i> . Edited by BurrowsDaron. (Anglo-Norman Texts, 74.) Oxford: Anglo-Norman Text Society, 2017. xvi + 168 pp., ill.

2019· article· en· W2913651581 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Keith Busby

Bibliographic record

VenueFrench Studies · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicColonialism, slavery, and trade
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsVernacularRomanceSAINTHistoryClassicsMedieval LatinPhilologyLiteraturePerformance artPresentation (obstetrics)ArtArt historySociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

It is difficult to overestimate the contributions made to medieval French and English studies by the Anglo-Norman Text Society since its inception in 1936 and first publication in 1939. The contributors include some of the great names of British and Canadian Romance philology, such as Dominica Legge, Mildred Pope, T. B. W. Reid, the largely unsung Alexander Bell and A. T. Baker, and, more recently, Brian Merrilees, A. J. Holden, Delbert Russell, Tony Hunt, and Ian Short. The list, of course, is highly selective. The high quality of the editorial work and presentation in the regular, occasional series, and plain texts during the last decades owes much to the tireless efforts and oversight of Short and Hunt. Daron Burrows has already published an excellent edition of La Vie de Saint Clement (3 vols, 2007–09), and the work under review here maintains his high standard. There are a number of illustrated vernacular versions of the Apocalypse of St John and accompanying commentary in Old French verse and prose, many of which are insular productions. In BL, MS Add. 24555 (c. 1270), the Latin text is on the verso with parts of the Anglo-Norman Apocalypse and commentary on the facing recto. A list of abbreviations and extensive bibliography is followed by an Introduction which includes a careful description of the manuscript, sections on palaeography, sources, nature and methods of the translation, language, author, date, audience, and establishment of the text. Burrows edits both the Anglo-Norman and Latin Vulgate texts of the Apocalypse. In appendices there are concordances of the Abingdon text with that of other versions and manuscripts, Vulgate Latin, and Anglo-Norman, a conspectus of biblical quotations, ample notes to the text, a full glossary, and index of proper names. Burrows eschews a detailed analysis of the relationship between the text and the many illustrations in the manuscript, although he hints at the rich potential of the subject (pp. 6–8). The edition and apparatus are immaculate, and any scholar interested in the role of Anglo-Norman in the spiritual world of late thirteenth-century England will want to read Burrows’s work, which will also be indispensable to art historians and others working in Apocalypse studies. I will, however, close this review on a less optimistic note. There are few younger scholars in post today, other than Daron Burrows, with the philological skills and inclination necessary to produce an edition of this kind (pace the great debate on what a critical edition should be in the twenty-first century). Italy has upheld its own philological traditions and France still pays somewhat more than lip service to the great editorial enterprise begun in the nineteenth century. In general, however, the straits are dire. It is incumbent on the community of medievalists to convince universities and graduate students that the critical edition in both Anglo-Norman and the continental manifestations of the langue d’oïl constitutes activity and training that should be encouraged and rewarded.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
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: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.272
Threshold uncertainty score0.910

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.005
Science and technology studies0.0030.002
Scholarly communication0.0080.005
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.2720.191

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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.239
Teacher spread0.230 · 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
GenreOther

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
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFrench Studies→Same topicColonialism, slavery, and trade→French-language works237,207→