JESSICA ROSENFELD. Ethics and Enjoyment in Late Medieval Poetry: Love after Aristotle.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
What I especially like about Ethics and Enjoyment in Late Medieval Poetry is the way it participates in the retrieval of philosophy from what existentialist William Barrett once called its déformation professionnelle. Jessica Rosenfeld sets out to tell the story of the impact of the translation of Aristotle for medieval English love literature. The influence of Aristotle has been something of a trope in medieval cultural studies for many years now, signalling inter alia embodiment, contingency, this-worldliness. To this discourse Rosenfeld makes a nuanced, ambitious, and impressive contribution, though one that is theologically unsatisfactory. It is still necessary, it seems, to make the case that medieval literature concerned itself with ethical problems. Rosenfeld reviews the evidence showing how medieval writers and readers did not consider the worlds of philosophy and literature to be two solitudes; ethical issues contributed significantly to their interconnectedness. She effectively uses the Roman de la Rose both as a starting point for her narrative of changes in the literary treatment of love (a quite common strategy in histories of this kind) and as a site (at once literary and geographical) that draws the worlds of philosophy and literature even closer together.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 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".