Bibliographic record
Abstract
An Annotated Chaucer Bibliography, 2010 Mark Allen and Bege K. Bowers Regular contributors: Anne Thornton, Abbot Public Library (Marblehead, Massachusetts) Stephen Jones, Ball State University (Indiana) George Nicholas, Benedictine College (Kansas) Debra Best, California State University at Dominguez Hills Gregory M. Sadlek, Cleveland State University (Ohio) David Sprunger, Concordia College (Minnesota) Winthrop Wetherbee, Cornell University (New York) Elaine Whitaker, Georgia College & State University Michelle Allen, Grand Valley State University (Michigan) Elizabeth Dobbs, Grinnell College (Iowa) Andrew James Johnston, Freie Universität (Germany) Wim Lindeboom, Independent Scholar (Netherlands) Teresa P. Reed, Jacksonville State University (Alabama) William Snell, Keio University (Japan) Denise Stodola, Kettering University (Michigan) Brian A. Shaw, London, Ontario William Schipper, Memorial University (Newfoundland, Canada) Martha Rust, New York University Warren S. Moore III, Newberry College (South Carolina) Cindy L. Vitto, Rowan College of New Jersey Brother Anthony (Sonjae An), Sogang University (South Korea) Stephanie Amsel, Southern Methodist University (Texas) Ana Saez Hidalgo, Universidad de Valladolid (Spain) Stefania D’Agata D’Ottavi, Università per Stranieri di Siena (Italy) Martine Yvernault, Université de Limoges Hillary K. Miller, University of Alabama at Birmingham Cynthia Ho, University of North Carolina, Asheville Margaret Connolly, University of St. Andrews (Scotland) [End Page 453] Rebecca Beal, University of Scranton (Pennsylvania) Mark Allen, University of Texas at San Antonio John M. Crafton, West Georgia College Bege K. Bowers, Youngstown State University (Ohio) Ad hoc contributions were made by several contributors, including Michael Murphy of New York, New York. The bibliographers acknowledge with gratitude the MLA typesimulation provided by the Center for Bibliographical Services of the Modern Language Association; postage from the University of Texas at San Antonio Department of English; and assistance from the library staff, especially Susan McCray, at the University of Texas at San Antonio. This bibliography continues the bibliographies published since 1975 in previous volumes of Studies in the Age of Chaucer. Bibliographic information up to 1975 can be found in Eleanor P. Hammond, Chaucer: A Bibliographic Manual (1908; reprint, New York: Peter Smith, 1933); D. D. Griffith, Bibliography of Chaucer, 1908–1953 (Seattle: University of Washington Press, 1955); William R. Crawford, Bibliography of Chaucer, 1954–1963 (Seattle: University of Washington Press, 1967); and Lorrayne Y. Baird, Bibliography of Chaucer, 1964–1973 (Boston: G. K. Hall, 1977). See also Lorrayne Y. Baird-Lange and Hildegard Schnuttgen, Bibliography of Chaucer, 1974–1985 (Hamden, Conn.: Shoe String Press, 1988); and Bege K. Bowers and Mark Allen, eds., Annotated Chaucer Bibliography, 1986–1996 (Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press, 2002). Additions and corrections to this bibliography should be sent to Mark Allen, Bibliographic Division, The New Chaucer Society, Department of English, University of Texas at San Antonio 78249-0643 (Fax: 210-458-5366; e-mail: mark.allen@utsa.edu). An electronic version of this bibliography (1975–2009) is available via The New Chaucer Society Web page at http://artsci.wustl.edu/~chaucer/ or directly at http://uchaucer.utsa.edu. Authors are urged to send annotations for articles, reviews, and books that have been or might be overlooked. [End Page 454] Classifications Bibliographies, Reports, and Reference 1–3 Recordings and Films 4–8 Chaucer’s Life 9–11 Facsimiles, Editions, and Translations 12–26 Manuscripts and Textual Studies 27–44 Sources, Analogues, and Literary Relations 45–56 Chaucer’s Influence and Later Allusion 57–86 Style and Versification 87–94 Language and Word Studies 95–110 Background and General Criticism 111–69 The Canterbury Tales—General 170–87 CT—The General Prologue 188–89 CT—The Knight and His Tale 190–96 CT—The Miller and His Tale 197–200 CT—The Reeve and His Tale 201–3 CT—The Cook and His Tale CT—The Man of Law and His Tale 204–15 CT—The Wife of Bath and Her Tale 216–24 CT—The Friar and His Tale 225 CT—The Summoner and His Tale 226–27 CT—The Clerk and His Tale 228–31 CT—The Merchant and His Tale 232–35 CT—The Squire and His Tale 236–37 CT—The Franklin and His Tale 238–41 CT—The Physician and His Tale CT—The Pardoner and His Tale 242–46 CT—The Shipman and His Tale CT—The Prioress and Her Tale...
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".