Det humanistiska bibelverket : Kring den nordiska reformationens bibelöversättning
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The study is a piece of philology, combined with historical translation studies. It is intended to update, further develop and partly revalue the conception of the Swedish and Danish Reformers’ translation of the Holy Bible into the contemporary vernaculars, carried out in the second quarter of the 16th century. A new angle of approach is the view of the early Reformation Bible in Scandinavia as a coherent complex of text, along with the attempt to sharply distinguish between the process of translation, i.e., the actual linguistic shift, and the subsequent revision of the text before printing. To that end, the term and the notion of translation philology has been coined. A third new feature in this biblical approach in Scandinavian philology is the focusing on the grammatical (syntactical) structure of phrases and sentences, not so much on the lexicon and vocabulary. After an introductory chapter (1), the content of the book falls into two main parts. In the first (chapters 2–5), the focus is on “the documents and history”, in the second (chapters 6–15) on “the documents and language”. Though treating the entire East Scandinavian Bible translation in the formative early Reformation epoch on the same methodologial terms, the author pays particular attention to the Swedish New testament 1526. The complicated preparation of this pioneering work is analysed and described with a method – and partly even a result – sharply opposed to traditional views.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 0.003 |
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".