Bibliographic record
Abstract
ANYONE who needs a guide to the Chaucerian terrain need not look very far these days. Of the three volumes of Oxford University Press's superb Guides to Chaucer series, Barry Windeatt's 1995 Troilus and Criseyde and A. J. Minnis's 1995 Shorter Poems can be printed on demand; Helen Cooper's Canterbury Tales (second edition 1996) is still in print. In 2005, Blackwell added A Concise Companion to Chaucer, ed. Corinne Saunders, to its list, where it keeps company Saunders’ Blackwell Guides to Criticism: Chaucer (2001) and a monumental Companion to Chaucer, ed. Peter Brown (2000). Gillian Rudd's Complete Critical Guide to Chaucer was published in 2001 by Routledge. Cambridge University Press produced a second edition of Piero Boitani and Jill Mann's Cambridge Companion to Chaucer in 2004; Withrop Wetherbee's guide to Chaucer: The Canterbury Tales is also in its second edition from the press (2004). In 2005, Yale University Press produced a Yale Companion to Chaucer, ed. Seth Lerer.
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) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.171 | 0.150 |
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".