MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4327663545 · doi:10.1017/9781846150210.011

The Anglo-Saxon Vocabulary of Metalworking

2002· other· en· W4327663545 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Elizabeth Coatsworth, Michael Pinder

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typeother
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicLinguistics and language evolution
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsOld EnglishVocabularyMicroformLinguisticsHistoryPoetryLiteratureClassicsArtComputer sciencePhilosophyLibrary science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
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 score0.351
Threshold uncertainty score0.969

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0320.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.025
GPT teacher head0.215
Teacher spread0.190 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

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
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicLinguistics and language evolutionFrench-language works237,207