Bibliographic record
Abstract
The fabliau La dame escoillee is often cited as a disturbing example of the medieval attitude toward women. Although violence is often presented as comic in the genre as a whole, the physical abuse suffered by women in this poem is so brutal that most scholars find it offensive, and feminist scholars in particular find it distressing that it was a relatively popular tale, preserved in six manuscripts.' Norris Lacy has, somewhat apologetically, praised this fabliau for its narrative complexity and skilled construction, and has called for a reading of the poem that takes into account factors other than the narrator's misogyny. He adds that this fabliau is addressed to an all-male audience, which may explain its strongly negative portrait of women as grasping and controlling, a portrait that conforms to the medieval stereotype. Male characters, Lacy reminds us, are often held up to derisive laughter for their individual faults, not for traits that merely confirm their gender. Lacy also notes that although the six versions of this fabliau are similar in content, there is a marked difference in narrative tone. Nottingham MS 19152, used as the basis for both Willem Noomen's critical edition and the previous Montaiglon-Raynaud edition, contains a long prologue, essentially a diatribe against women, while authorial intrusions throughout this version continue in this misogynist tone; the other versions of the fabliau pay much less attention to the female characters. Lacy refuses to tackle the complex question of whether MS 19152, the longest and most complete of the six manuscripts, preserves the original version, but he does favour the idea that the prologue may be a later addition (p. 110).
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 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".