Bibliographic record
Abstract
In England, as in Germany and the Netherlands, there was a substantial production of Latin–vernacular and vernacular–Latin dictionaries in the fifteenth and early sixteenth centuries. The first of any importance – the Medulla grammatice, the Hortus vocabulorum and the Promptorium parvulorum – appeared in the first half of the fifteenth century, and can perhaps be associated with the rising prestige of the English language under the Lancastrian kings. They were succeeded from the second quarter of the sixteenth century onwards by a tradition of dictionaries showing humanistic influence: this begins with the first edition of the Dictionary of Sir Thomas Elyot in 1538, a work indebted to Calepino, and continues with a revision by Elyot of the same work, published as the Bibliotheca Eliotae in 1545. The tradition was then continued by an Oxford schoolmaster, Thomas Cooper, and by lexicographers indebted to him. It would be possible to trace the development of the aims of these bilingual dictionaries from the elucidation of Latin texts to the increasingly confident display of the riches of English vocabulary and phraseology.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".