MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1597531853 · doi:10.3138/flor.24.004

<i>Le Bestiaire d'amour</i> in Lombardy

2007· article· en· W1597531853 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueFlorilegium · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicHistorical and Literary Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBestiaryLexiconRomanceOrthographyMiddle EnglishSyntaxParliamentLiteratureHistoryArtHumanitiesClassicsPhilosophyLinguisticsLawPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Le Bestiaire d’amour was written in northern France by Richard de Fournival, Chancellor of Notre Dame “dame,”, in the middle of the thirteenth century. Drawing heavily on bestiary material, it was addressed to an anonymous “dame,” and for her it diverted well-known animal exempla to new purpose: a prescriptive/proscriptive analysis of profane love. Enriching that analysis are Aristotelian reminiscences and digressions. There are also flashes of misogyny, for the new love-bestiary’s didacticism is Ovidian in its complexity. While ostensibly obeying conventional codes of courtliness, it effectively demotes woman from any position of superiority because, in a hierarchy where man’s glory over the other animals is his reason, reason isthe one quality to which his lady is unresponsive. Ending with a plea for mercy from la blle dame sans merci, Richard suggests there will be neither closure nor a happy ending for Le Bestiaire man’s.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.935
Threshold uncertainty score0.623

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.013
GPT teacher head0.267
Teacher spread0.254 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it