The Adjective (Ge)Sælig in Old English Prose: Towards a Characterisation of the Lexical Field of Holiness in Old English
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The adjective gesælig is a representative of the lexical field of HOLINESS in Old English in the perspective of Trier’s (1931) theory and its later modifications (Schwyter, 1996) (alongside with other adjectives and past participles (ge)bleotsod, (ge)halgod, halig as defined in TOE online: Holiness: Characterized by holiness, blessed.). The aim of this chapter is to determine what position this adjective occupies in this field in terms of its syntactical use and specific meaning with reference to the other members of the lexical field as well as the field of HAPPINESS, which it is also a part of. The chapter shall present the meaning and use of (ge)sælig in the context of prose texts using the York-Toronto-Helsinki Parsed Corpus of Old English as well as further analyse it by identifying and classifying its conceptual fields, i.e., who or what can be (ge)sælig. The chapter furthermore includes a comparative study of the findings between (ge)sælig and halig, as the same methodology has already been applied to halig in Fúsik (2018).
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 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".