Bibliographic record
Abstract
Described Thomas James 241; Stanley P. 6; Nasmith 32; James, Corpus 32; Margaret Joyce Powell, The Pauline Epistles Contained in MS Parker 32 , EETS es 116 (London, 1916), pp. ix–xvi; Doyle diss, vol. 2, p. 64; Morey, pp. 332–333, 344–346; Index of Images 17. [1] f. 1 ra Seynte marke ewangeliste þe chosene of god & þe godson of petre & in goddis worde his disciple did his prestehode in ysrael & eftir þat he was turnyde to þe feyth in ytalye he wrote þe gospel & as it is wryten of hym … f. 56 vb … þe worde of þe gospel þurgh alle þe werlde to þe worship & lofynge of oure lord ihesu þe whylke regnys with þe fadyr & þe holy goste & worldys wiþouten ende amen. Commentary on Mark. Titulus in upper margin severely cropped and stained; remaining inscription reads: ‘… bygynnyng of seynt marke gospelus […]yn …’. Text begins f. 1 ra : ‘Inicium ewangelij iesu christi filij dei sicut scriptum est …’. On f. 56 vb : ‘Here endis þe glose of marke þee ewangelist in englissche tunge thankyde be god amen’. Wells VIII:28; Wells Rev. 2:545 [39]. Text discussed FM I: ix–x; Paues 2, p. xxvii; Deanesly, pp. 279, 310. Following FM, all (including Wells Rev.) assume a relationship between the relatively short commentaries on Mark and Luke in the present MS, and the longer commentary on Matthew in BL Egerton 842 and in CUL Ii.2.12. However, as Anne Hudson has pointed out ( Premature , p. 411), the reasons for this are not clear. There is no obvious connection between Matthew and the other two. Note that pace LALME in LP 235 and LP 164, Egerton and CUL do not contain the commentaries on Mark and Luke, only that on Matthew. Ann Eljenholm Nichols has suggested that differences in the illustrative programme and the layout point to different sources for Mark and Luke in the present MS (‘The Illustrations of CCCC MS 32: “Þe glose in Englissche tunge” ‘ in Image, Text and Church, 1380–1600: Essays for Margaret Aston , ed. Linda Clark et al . (forthc. Toronto, 2009).
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.812 | 0.660 |
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".