Glasgow University Library, Hunterian MS 7
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Confessio Amantis , 8 single leaves missing and two quires at the end London, s.xv, first quarter (late) Contents (fols 1r–181v; numbered 1–179 because of doubling of 98 and 106) Confessio Amantis , Prol. 1 to VIII.782, ending incomplete Torpor hebes sensus…. (6 lines of Latin verse) Off hem þat written vs tofore < > As þough þat it an Aungel were. Prologue (fol. 1r) missing 504–657 (wants original fol. 4, replaced by a numbered blank parchment leaf, with the missing text supplied in a s.xvii hand, six lines being left blank at the bottom of fol. 4vb because of a mistake in the ruling); also missing 984–I.30 (wants original fol. 7, replaced by a numbered blank parchment leaf); Book I (fol. 8ra) begins imperfect (missing lines 1–30 due to missing fol. 7), also missing I. 199–336 (wants original fol. 9, replaced by a numbered blank parchment leaf); also missing I.3402–II.108 (wants original fol. 28, replaced by a numbered blank parchment leaf); Book II (fol. 29ra) begins imperfect, missing 1–108 due to wanting fol. 28; Book III (fol. 49r); Book IV (fol. 65v); Book V (fol. 87r) missing V.7718–VI.40 (wants original fol. 129, replaced by a numbered blank parchment leaf); Book VI begins imperfect (missing VI.1–40 due to wanting fol. 129) and missing VI.2343–VII.60 (wants original fol. 143, replaced by a numbered blank parchment leaf); Book VII begins imperfect (missing VII.1–60 due to wanting fol. 143) and missing VII.5399–VIII.126 (wants a leaf between fols 175–76, not replaced); Book VIII begins imperfect (missing 1–126) and missing VIII.271–441 (wants fol. 177, replaced by a numbered blank parchment leaf), and also wants leaves (two quires of eight, reckoning 145 lines per folio in text of 2331 lines) after fol. 179, with VIII.783–3114*. All but the last of the eight missing single leaves would have contained pictures or borders (see ILLUSTRATION, DECORATION, below). Text: collated by Macaulay (sigil G), version Ib. Macaulay (ed., Works , II.cxliv–cxlv) comments on the close relation (and superior spelling) to London, Society of Antiquaries, MS 134. See also John Young and P. Henderson Aiken, A Catalogue of the Manuscripts in the Library of the Hunterian Museum in the University of Glasgow (Glasgow, 1908), 10–11.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.811 | 0.687 |
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".