Thinking about the Future: The Psychology of the Mind and Soul in <i>Judgement Day I</i>
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The Exeter Book poem Judgement Day I has long been considered by scholars to be an inferior Old English poem, failing to reach the literary heights or vivid drama of Judgement Day II or Christ III. However, this comparison is caused largely by the presuppositions that the modern title imposes, rather than matters of content. This paper argues that Judgement Day I is not meant to warn about the Final Judgement but instead is concerned with the present time of the reader as a way to encourage contemplation of their present actions in order to safeguard their soul’s future. To accomplish this, the poem draws on a psychological model of mind-body-soul primarily identified by Malcolm Godden, Soon-Ai Low, and Leslie Lockett. The presence of this psychological model has been previously noted by scholars in other Exeter Book poems such as The Wanderer, The Seafarer, and Soul and Body II. This study draws Judgement Day I into conversation with some of these poems and argues that its focus on safeguarding the soul for its final journey, or siðfæt, is a motif with which many of the Exeter poems engage. Judgement Day I can thus be read as a poem that engages with the themes of many other Exeter Book texts and participates actively in a larger poetic sequence throughout the manuscript.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| 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 | 0.017 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
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".