Bibliographic record
Abstract
The edition under discussion has a long history, if not prehistory, behind it.Researchers specialising in the chronicle by Theodoricus monachus had for decades to satisfy themselves with the Gustav Storm edition from the collection Monumenta Historica Norvegiae.While that edition certainly satisfi ed the highest standards of nineteenth-century editorial work, as set by the Monumenta Germaniae Historica, it obviously became obsolete long ago -be it because it was based on the incomplete manuscript resource. 1After Storm's death, two other copies were found which he had not managed to make use of.True, they do not diametrically alter our idea of Theodoricus's text, and have themselves been quite well described in the literature.The fact remains, though, that preparation of a new edition, based on all the four manuscripts, was a must -a long-discussed thing.An opportunity came in the mid-1990s with Lars Boje Mortensen's initiation of a series of Latin sources regarding the history of mediaeval Norway.The Historia Norwegie and the Passio et miracula beati Olavi was to be the responsibility of Inger Ekrem; Karen Skovgaard-Petersen was to take care about De profectione Danorum in Hierosolymam; Egil Kraggerud, a classical philologist from Oslo, would prepare an edition of De antiquitate regum Norwagiensium.As Ekrem died suddenly while
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 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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".