MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4402894425 · doi:10.1163/18756719-12340308

Some Observations on the Copying Practices of Scribe 5 of Oxford, Bodleian Library, MS Tanner 10

2024· article· en· W4402894425 on OpenAlexaff
Elena Afros

Bibliographic record

VenueAmsterdamer Beiträge zur älteren Germanistik · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicClassical Antiquity Studies
Canadian institutionsSt. Jerome's University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCopyingPolitical scienceLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The work of Scribe 5 (T5) of Oxford, Bodleian Library, MS Tanner 10 (x 1 ; T), the earliest extant witness to the Old English Bede ( OEB ), is generally described in negative terms: the script is labeled ugly and copying mechanical. The present article discusses the copying practices. It takes a comparative approach to punctuation and linguistic characteristics of T5’s stint. It shows that punctuation in T5’s stint is discourse- and content-based. In this segment of the text, T agrees with at least one other extant manuscript of the OEB on the placement of the punctus that signals the discourse chunks boundaries in 97% of instances, which means that this type of punctuation is inherited from a common ancestor. In contrast, the punctus that marks the noteworthy information is found only in T. Linguistic features likewise include archaic and dialectally-marked forms faithfully copied from the exemplar as well as contemporary and dialectally-unmarked ones attributable to T5. T5’s conservatism renders his work invaluable for reconstructing the antecedent copies of the OEB . His innovations shed light on the evolution of punctuation and the English language in the ninth-tenth centuries.

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 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 categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.831
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.094
GPT teacher head0.351
Teacher spread0.257 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAmsterdamer Beiträge zur älteren GermanistikSame topicClassical Antiquity StudiesFrench-language works237,207