Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
No comprehensive study of Early Middle English derivation has been published thus far. This book is an attempt to remedy the situation, at least to give a detailed analysis of one class of suffixes, i.e., seven suffixes forming abstract nouns. They are both of native (-dōm, -s(c)hipe(e), -hōd(e) and -nes(se)) and French origin (-āge, -(e)rte and -ment). The analysis includes the semantics of the suffixes both from a diachronic and a synchronic perspective as well as their productivity and dialect distribution. The study is data-oriented, hence the analysis of linguistic facts is dominating. The analysed material comes from the Dictionary of Old English (A-F) based on the Toronto Corpus of Old English Texts, the Toronto Corpus and the Middle English Dictionary on-line. The unique features of the study are the account of the senses of the suffixes in Old and Early Middle English, and the semantic evolution of the native suffixes from Old to Early Middle English as well as the demonstration that some of the French suffixes were productive already in Early Middle English.
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.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 it