Tradice původu Langobardů a její zdroje
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
This thesis examines three sources dealing with the question of the origin of the Lombards, namely two short anonymous texts (the so-called Origo gentis Langobardorum, a text dating back to the second half of the seventh century, and the so-called Historia Langobardorum codicis Gothani, a text written probably between years 807-810) and Historia Langobardorum by a Lombard historian Paul the Deacon. The emphasis is laid on the mutual relationship between the texts, especially between the Origo gentis Langobardorum and the Historia Langobardorum codicis Gothani, both of which show a considerable number of common features. The question I mainly focus on is whether the latter can be directly dependent upon the former or whether the idea of a common source of both texts is more plausible. Another problem I am trying to solve is the question whether the author of the Historia Langobardorum codicis Gothani might have had any knowledge of the work of Paul the Deacon. The core of the thesis is formed by an analysis and a comparison of selected passages of the aforementioned texts.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 it