MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W597048075 · doi:10.1017/9780585490809.008

Where did all the Charters Go? Anglo-Saxon Charters and the New Politics of the Eleventh Century

2002· other· en· W597048075 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Charles Insley

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typeother
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicMulticultural Socio-Legal Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEleventhDemiseQuarter (Canadian coin)PoliticsHistoryAnglo saxonAncient historyPolitical scienceArchaeologyLawPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In 1681, on the island of Mauritius, the last Dodo was killed. Exactly six hundred years before, the Anglo-Saxon solemn diploma met an equally final end, with what I would argue was the last example being produced in that year. Like the Dodo, the final demise of the diploma had been a drawn-out process and one which had begun in the second quarter of the eleventh century. The Problem The genesis of this article was some thought provoking papers in sessions on early medieval biography and charters at the University of Leeds in 1996, further stimulated by Robin Fleming's 2000 Allen Brown Memorial Lecture, and consists of three related questions. First, how far can we use Anglo-Saxon charters as ‘texts’ in their own right, rather than simply a resource to be quarried for the names of people and places? More particularly, should we dismiss much of the contents of Anglo-Saxon charters as more or less irrelevant pseudo-religious verbiage?Were the elaborate and often baroque proems of charters from the period c.930–90 simply the academic exercises of clever monastic scribes or did they have a more important function? Charters have for so long been seen as administrative records that it is sometimes difficult to think of them as anything else. Should we in fact regard Anglo-Saxon charters in part as we regard Anglo-Saxon lawcodes: with a practical dimension, certainly, but also with a deeper ideological dimension? Second, why is the Anglo-Saxon solemn diploma of the tenth and eleventh centu ries structured in the way it is, containing, as it often does, a long and wordy proem which often seems to bear little relation to the purpose of the charter, in contrast to the arenga of many continental charters? Thirdly and finally, we must also ask why, having lasted from the seventh century to the mid-eleventh century, the diploma, in its Anglo-Saxon form, by which I mean invocation, pictorial, verbal, or both, proem, disposition, anathema, blessing and dating protocol, disappeared so rapidly from the second quarter of the eleventh century? Why, in effect, was the Anglo-Saxon solemn diploma, as well as being unusual in comparison with continental diplomatic, a diplomatic dead-end? The answers (for there must be more than one) to these question must lie with the function of the charter. There has been a considerable amount written about the Anglo-Saxon charter over the last twenty or so years, much of it excellent.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.031
Threshold uncertainty score0.076

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0110.017
Scholarly communication0.0120.005
Open science0.0000.002
Research integrity0.0010.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.265
Teacher spread0.245 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
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

Citations50
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicMulticultural Socio-Legal StudiesFrench-language works237,207