Bibliographic record
Abstract
the literary phenomenon of the so-called opus geminatum or geminus stilus has been well documented in lateantique and early medi eval Latin literature. 1 In sum, this genre produces two texts of essentially the same content but of different form: one in prose and the other in poetry.Though it is common for both texts to be by the same author-opera geminata of Caelius Sedulius, Aldhelm, and Bede are good examples 2the poetic companion piece to a prose work was also often composed by a different author, sometimes centuries apart, and even sometimes in a different language.So Alcuin, who incidentally has his own poetic and prose lives of Willibrord, composed a kind of poetic version of Bede's Historia ecclesiastica in his poem on York; 3 and, to stretch the genre to its limits, some Old English poetry can be read as "twinning" Latin prose sources. 4 One of the more elaborate of these opera geminata was composed in the mid-tenth century, after Oda, Archbishop of Canterbury, probably taking advantage of military expeditions in Northumbria, was able to acquire the relics of Saint Wilfrid, which apparently were withering away, unkept and 1 Godman, "The Anglo-Latin Opus Geminatum," 215-29; Wieland, "Geminus stylus," 113-33; and Friesen, "The Opus Geminatum and AngloSaxon Literature," 123-44.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".