MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4379624898 · doi:10.1353/mlr.2004.a827094

A Companion to Anglo-Saxon Literature ed. by Phillip Pulsiano, Elaine Treharne, and: Satan Unbound: The Devil in Old English Narrative Literature by Peter Dendle (review)

2004· article· en· W4379624898 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Modern Language Review · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicMedieval Literature and History
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNarrativePoetryClassicsState (computer science)SociologyHistoryArtLiterature

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

MLR, 99.2, 2004 449 A Companion toAnglo-Saxon Literature. Ed. by Phillip Pulsiano and Elaine Tre? harne. (Blackwell Companions to Literature and Culture) Oxford and Malden, MA: Blackwell. 2001. xviii + 529pp. ?80; $124.95. ISBN 0-631-20904-2. Satan Unbound: The Devil in Old English Narrative Literature. By Peter Dendle. Toronto, Buffalo, NY, and London: University of Toronto Press. 2001. xiii + 196 pp. $50; ?30 (pbk $22.95; ?12). ISBN 0-8020-4839-0 (pbk 0-8020-83962 ). Two books, two indices as to the health of a discipline: in a sense, the books under review represent different ends of Anglo-Saxon studies. The Companion is selfconsciously oriented to teaching, to introducing the neophyte and non-specialist to the best the field currently offers,rather than breaking new ground as a primary goal. As a scholarly monograph (an endangered species, given the state of university presses), Satan Unbound represents what new questions and answers the field is producing. The Blackwell Companions focus on 'orientingthe beginning student in new fields of study and providing the experienced undergraduate and new graduate student with current and new directions, as pioneered and developed by leading scholars in the field'. In Anglo-Saxon studies, this type of introduction/summation/state-of-the-field project is currently a growth area: M. Lapidge and M. Godden, The Cambridge Com? panion to Old English Literature (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1991); H. Aertsen and R. Bremmer, Companion to Old English Poetry (Amsterdam: VU Univer? sity Press, 1994); R. Bjork and J.Niles, A 'Beowulf' Handbook (Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 1997); M. Lapidge and others, The Blackwell Encyclopedia ofAngloSaxon England (Oxfordand Malden, MA: Blackwell, 1999); M. Alexander, A History ofOld English Literature (Peterborough, ON: Broadview Press, 2002); R. Liuzza, Old English Literature: Critical Essays (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2002); A. Orchard , A Critical Companion to 'Beowulf (Woodbridge, Suffolk, and Rochester, NY: Brewer, 2003); R. Fulk and C. Cain, A History of Old English Literature (Malden, MA: Blackwell, 2003); P. Baker, Introduction to Old English (Malden, MA: Blackwell, 2003); the ongoing series of classic reprinted essays, 'Basic Readings in Anglo-Saxon England' (7 vols to date, New York: Garland and Routledge, 1994-2002). In Chapter 1 the editors of the Companion explain that 'A volume such as this is designed to inform and stimulate' (p. 9). Every one of the twenty-seven chapters in this volume informs with absolutely up-to-date surveys ofthe field; however, not all of the essays stimulate. Rather than rehearse the titles and contents ofthe various essays, I will concentrate here on overall impressions. In general, the Companion places what had been considered 'non-canonical' texts over the traditionally 'canonical'. What this means is prose over verse, extending even beyond prose authors such as i^lfric and Wulfstan to scientific and legal texts and other relatively neglected forms. Even when poetry makes an appearance, as a general rule one is more likely to find a contributor reaching fora riddle or maxim as an illustration rather than a passage fromBeowulf or the elegies or the Dream oftheRood. Is this a good thing ?On the one hand the picture of the Anglo-Saxon textual world presented here is undeniably broader and more com? plex than heretofore, with chapters, for example, on 'Legal and Documentary Writ? ings' and 'Prayers, Glosses and Glossaries', among others. On the other hand, in 529 pages there is really no sustained discussion ofBeowulf', the most extensive being Fred Robinson's four pages of well-chosen comments inhis chapter ('Secular Poetry'). To be sure, one can go to many places for good introductions to the poem, but it does feel as if the Companion moves too overwhelmingly far away from what generations of reader have feltto be the most compelling specimens of Anglo-Saxon literature. In another sign of the volume's salutary engagement with the field's most productive research in recent years, manuscript context is given pride of place throughout. Most contributors place their subjects fullywithin the context of manuscript produc- 45 o Reviews tion and dissemination; no fewer than four essays in Part I ('Contexts and Perspec? tives') address the role of manuscripts in Anglo-Saxon literary culture...

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.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.537
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.230
Teacher spread0.222 · 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