Bibliographic record
Abstract
Inventing the Past : Remarks on the Re-enactment of Medieval Poetry — No matter how qualified she may be from the philological standpoint, the translator of medieval poetry is immediately confronted with a sense of her own diachronic incompetence insofar as the cultural, esthetic and affective resonances of the medieval poem are concerned. The translator who chooses to produce a crib will give the modern reader a way into the surface structures of the medieval text, but will convey little of its emotional resonance. Opting for prose translation will allow her to flesh her reading out somewhat, but convey none of the meaning inherent in the form itself. Even verse translation — if it remains merely verse — will prove inadequate to the "poetry" of the original text. The only way to give the twentieth-century reader a way into the jouissance of the medieval poem, as opposed to its syntax and semantics, is to function as a poet, and produce a free-standing text. This essay discusses various writerly strategies for reactivating the poetry of the medieval poem, for producing feeling, and the sort of insight that can come only from feeling. Illustrating these considerations are a number of "derived poems" of my own, based on pieces by Charles d'Orléans.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".