Bibliographic record
Abstract
The following word-lists owe a great debt to three sources: the great Anglo- Saxon dictionary by Bosworth and Toller; A Thesaurus of Old English ; and the microfiche and on-line versions of the Old English Dictionary based in Toronto, although other sources were consulted too, acknowledged in chapters 7 and 8 and below. Bold in these lists means that the term is found only in poetry; italics that it is found only in glosses. Where glosses have provided one or more Latin equivalents, these have also been included. Modern English versions of the same words where they have kept anything of the original meanings have also been listed; there are a few still used by craftsmen which have fallen out of the general vocabulary: these are added to the modern English gloss where known to the authors, but there are probably more. The Anglo-Saxon vocabulary of metalworking has to be teased out from various sources, most of them belonging to the latest part of the period. It may have been the case that at least one manuscript of Mappae Clavicula was known in pre-Conquest England (chapter 1), but no Anglo-Saxon manuscript of that date actually survives. There is therefore no document of which the principal concern is to describe a metalworking process, or provide a recipe (of a solder, for example). We can show that a vocabulary for some of the materials, tools, techniques and workers exists, but not very often how this was used in the work situation. The majority of terms come from poetry, homilies and saints’ lives, where they are sometimes used descriptively, but too briefly to provide a real commentary on an object’s structure, or the real skills of a famous smith, and where, especially in the homiletic literature, they may also be derivative from earlier, non-Anglo- Saxon sources. Glosses are another major source, and they are valuable where they are not the only source for a technical term, in giving a Latin equivalent which may have a history of its own. There is in Old English a rich vocabulary for processes such as heating, melting, mixing, thinning and thickening, all of which would be required for certain metalworking processes, but in general they are found in relation to the preparation of food or medicines.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.039 | 0.025 |
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".