MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2087499840 · doi:10.1093/library/8.4.423

Unclaimed Territory: The Ballad of ‘Auld Robin Gray’ and the Assertion of Authorial Ownership

2007· article· en· W2087499840 on OpenAlexaff
Jane Millgate

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Library · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicLegal principles and applications
Canadian institutionsToronto Public Health
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBalladAssertionGray (unit)ArtArt historyHistoryLiteratureComputer scienceMedicinePoetry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract For the first fifty years of its existence the ballad ‘Auld Robin Gray’ existed as an anonymous work, the author, Lady Anne Lindsay, having decided not to assert authorship when she composed it in 1772. In 1823, at the instigation of Walter Scott, Lady Anne chose to reassert her claim to a text that had by that point moved well beyond the limits of personal control and been subjected to multiple modifications by owners and performers as varied as street singers, operatic composers, and writers of fashionable fiction. The present essay attempts to disentangle both the ballad' complicated textual history and the intricate issues of ownership arising from competing musical settings. By exploring in full detail a remarkably complex instance of contested ownership in a text that still retains its place in modern anthologies and in the repertoires of contemporary singers, the essay seeks to raise questions about anonymity and textual ownership that have far wider implications.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.019
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.040

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.019
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0100.047
Scholarly communication0.0110.008
Open science0.0010.006
Research integrity0.0030.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.279
Teacher spread0.260 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe LibrarySame topicLegal principles and applicationsFrench-language works237,207