MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1674705229 · doi:10.5325/chaucerrev.48.3.0258

“Save oure tonges difference”:

2014· article· en· W1674705229 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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Chaucer Review · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicMedieval Literature and History
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsVernacularAlterityLexiconSyntaxContext (archaeology)LiteraturePoetryLinguisticsHistoryPhilosophyArtEpistemology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract This article considers the relationship between translation and historical alterity in Troilus and Criseyde. Chaucer opens Book II of Troilus by admitting that the customs of the poem's ancient lovers might seem strange: culture, like language, changes over the centuries. This passage probably derives from Dante's Convivio, which argues that 1,000 years of linguistic change would render the vernacular of one's own city strange and foreign. In order to understand how such alterity can emerge in a translation like Troilus, this article considers Convivio's statements in the context of fourteenth-century Italian vernacular translations that emulate the syntax and lexicon of Latin source texts. These translations expand the expressive range of the vernacular, allowing linguistic change to be glimpsed as it happens. Similarly, in Troilus Chaucer exploits the transformative potential of translation, using close translation to create effects of linguistic—and hence historical—difference within his own lexicon.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.807
Threshold uncertainty score0.996

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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)0.0050.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.043
GPT teacher head0.238
Teacher spread0.195 · 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