Janet Schrunk-Ericksen, <i>Reading Old English Biblical Poetry: The Book and the Poem in Junius 11.</i> Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2021, pp. 222.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Janet Schrunk-Ericksen (Ph.D., University of Illinois), Professor of English and Acting Chancellor at the University of Minnesota, Morris, has written a worthwhile study of Oxford, Bodleian Library MS Junius 11 and key aspects of the five narrative poems within it. As her title suggests, the five poems might have been considered “the poem”: one poem with multiple parts, by an early reader reading through the book, if proceeding sequentially. Indeed, Schrunk-Eriksen’s book, Reading Old English Biblical Poetry, explores how early readers may have approached and understood Junius 11, its sequential contents, and its representation of God’s divine power. She pays careful attention to the physical codex as well as to close readings of the poems. Her work emerges alongside an on-going revival of academic interest in how to read medieval manuscripts, which is similarly demonstrated by Elaine Traherne’s study, Perceptions of Medieval Manuscripts: The Phenomenal Book (Oxford, 2022) and Carl Kears, MS Junius 11 and its Poetry (Boydell & Brewer, 2022).
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".