MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4323914407 · doi:10.1017/9781846158148.005

The Old English Sunday Letters

2010· other· en· W4323914407 on OpenAlexaff

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typeother
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicMedieval Literature and History
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsVariety (cybernetics)Context (archaeology)Old EnglishHistoryLinguisticsGenealogyLiteratureClassicsArtComputer scienceArtificial intelligenceArchaeologyPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Sunday Letter in its Anglo-Saxon context represents some of the earliest evidence for its widespread use in the West. Six copies survive, representing four distinct lines of transmission. If it is remarkable that we encounter the letter so often in Old English, it is even more striking that it appears to have been acceptable in a variety of environments. The most learned minds of the age may have rejected it, but its placement in manuscripts compiled at respected centres and the evidence of active use suggest that it was found to be a suitable vehicle for instruction in certain contexts. Manuscripts Cambridge, Corpus Christi College 140 (Letter A) Letter A was copied into CCCC 140, a West Saxon version of the Gospels written at Bath Abbey in the first half of the eleventh century. The Sunday Letter was added later (s. xi) at the end of the Gospel of Mark and is written in the same hand as some of the manumissions added at Bath in the blank spaces of the manuscript; all of these mention Abbot Ælfsige (1075–87), which provides a convenient way to assign a defined time period to the work of the scribe. The text follows the end of Mark without a break and with an only slightly enlarged capital h . The scribe edited (perhaps for oral delivery) the first line, adding an introductory Men þa leofestan , halie before gewrit and soðlice to the beginning of the second sentence. The placement of this Sunday Letter is remarkable. The addition of non-canonical text to books of scripture is not unique, but the Sunday Letter is a very unconventional text, raising the unanswerable question of whether the writer placed it in this context simply because the empty space was available, or because he in fact thought that the letter had near-canonical status, since it does, after all, claim to have been written by the Saviour's own hand ( þurh þæs hehstan hælendes handa gewriten ). In other Old English versions of the Sunday Letter, the text is called a godspell , though not in this particular one; however, as mentioned above, halie is supplied before gewrit , possibly in an effort to add some authority to the piece.

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)0.006
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 score0.093
Threshold uncertainty score0.312

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0040.002
Scholarly communication0.0050.001
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0930.051

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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.178
Teacher spread0.169 · 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
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicMedieval Literature and HistoryFrench-language works237,207