Bibliographic record
Abstract
In my research, I propose a linguistic approach to skaldic praise poetry pursued and explained in the framework of Eugeniu Coseriu´s text linguistics. My study aims to demonstrate the different degrees of integration of battle’s proper meaning, from a calculated strategy in pre-Christian poems, to performing a sacred game in later Christian skaldic poems and eventually to the insertion in a ready-made structure as a unit of repeated speech. Considering kenning metaphors as sequences of repeated speech, I will also investigate to what extent the idiocultural class of battle, employed in some biblical circumstances (1 Corinthians 9:24.26; 2 Timothy:2-5; 2 Timothy 4-7, etc.), suggests a cultural model engaged in a semantic tension with the old Norse setting of the eleventh century. In my study, I will identify and discuss the sequences of repeated speech (kennings) which designate the battle and I will clarify these tensions. Taking the theory of repeated speech as a point of departure, the discussion of these issues will be structured around three types of kennings for battle: battle is storm, battle is senna (fierce verbal duels), battle is a game to play.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.014 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
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".