Bibliographic record
Abstract
This entry presents a comprehensive overview of the computational study of Old English that surveys the evolution from early digital corpora to recent artificial intelligence applications. Six interconnected domains are examined: textual resources (including the Helsinki Corpus, the Dictionary of Old English Corpus, and the York-Toronto-Helsinki Parsed Corpus), lexicographical resources (analysing approaches from Bosworth–Toller to the Dictionary of Old English), corpus lemmatisation (covering both prose and poetic texts), treebanks (particularly Universal Dependencies frameworks), and artificial intelligence applications. The paper shows that computational methodologies have transformed Old English studies because they facilitate large-scale analyses of morphology, syntax, and semantics previously impossible through traditional philological methods. Recent innovations are highlighted, including the development of lexical databases like Nerthusv5, dependency parsing methods, and the application of transformer models and NLP libraries to historical language processing. In spite of these remarkable advances, problems persist, including limited corpus size, orthographic inconsistency, and methodological difficulties in applying modern computational techniques to historical languages. The conclusion is reached that the future of computational Old English studies lies in the integration of AI capabilities with traditional philological expertise, an approach that enhances traditional scholarship and opens new avenues for understanding Anglo-Saxon language and culture.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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 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".