About the construction of lines in the MS

[quimqu]

The Scribe had a handful of abbreviations that he could use to help avoid bad breaks or rail overflow.  Changing iin to m was one.

Hello Jorge,

I tried the m -> iin substitution in the notebook, both in the line-break detection and in the mid-line continuation tests.

Short version. It doesn’t improve things. If anything, it slightly degrades the signal.

In the line-break test, AUC stays basically the same, with only a tiny local gain vs nearby non-cuts. But in the continuation tests, the effect is clearly negative. Real continuations become less distinguishable from alternatives, and final-token end scores drop consistently across sections.

So overall, expanding m to iindoes not make the structure more visible in these models, and tends to weaken it.

What kind of change would you have expected to see if the abbreviation hypothesis were correct? I can test any ideas of yours.