AELFFLED, ABBESS OF WHITBY, IN ANGLO-SAXON HAGIOGRAPHIC TRADITION AT THE TURN OF THE 7TH AND 8TH CENTURIES
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The paper focuses on the representation of Aelffled, abbess of Whitby, in hagiographical works of Anglo-Saxon church writers at the turn of the 7th and 8th centuries. The research is based on Stephen of Ripon’s live of Saint Wilfred of York and two lives of Saint Cuthbert, composed by an anonymous monk of Lindisfarn and Bede the Venerable. Within the first centuries after the Christianization of England, the authority of noble Anglo-Saxon abbesses was based on their kin relations with the ruling houses. A member of Northumbrian royal dynasty, Aelffled was one of the most powerful women in England of her time. She took interest in written culture, succession strategies, and church politics. Her circle of social contacts stretched far beyond the monastery walls. In the life of Saint Wilfred, Aelffled is shown as a prominent public figure. The hagiographic tradition devoted to Cuthbert of Lindisfarn reveals her emotional world, personal interaction with the wonderworker and her involvement in the affairs of Northumbrian royal house. Literary portraits of the second abbess of Whitby illustrate the high social position of noble ladies who were at the head of Anglo-Saxon double houses, as well as the dubious attitude of church milieu towards their political activities. Among other factors that determined Aelffled’s portrayal by her contemporaries were the circumstances of their works’ composition, individual biographic features of the saints to whom the vitae were devoted to, and the narrative’s micro-context. Based on the comparative and contextual analysis, the author attempts to revise the attitude expressed by modern gender historians about Bede’s hostility towards abbess Aelffled.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".