Bibliographic record
Abstract
This book makes fascinating reading.First, there are all the arguments that a host of linguistic properties in Middle English, many of which survive in Modern English, originate in Norse, the language spoken by the Scandinavian immigrants who settled in England in the ninth to eleventh centuries.As a result of the migration a new form of Germanic developed, with a syntax which is more Norse (Old Scandinavian) than Old English and a vocabulary which is more Old English than Norse, even though it also contains a good deal of Norse words.This form of English developed first in the Danelaw region, in the East and North-East of England, but later became the dominant form in all of Britain.On a general enough level, this is the picture presented by much research on the history of English, but Joseph Emonds and Jan Terje Faarlund, the authors of this book, have found an even greater preponderance of Norse-based grammatical features over Old English-based features than recognized by other researchers, and argue on that basis that Middle English grammar is North Germanic, not West Germanic.They call this the Anglo-Norse Hypothesis.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 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".