<i>Rosamond's complaint: Daniel, Ovid, and the purpose of poetry</i>
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT Samuel Daniel's The Complaint of Rosamond was first published in 1592 as the second half of Daniel's first book. In this poem, the ghost of Henry II's mistress Rosamond appears to Daniel to commission a poem. Daniel's precedents for his poem are the complaint poems written in the late 1580s and early 1590s and, ultimately, Ovid's Heroides. The Heroides provide a female perspective on love stories usually told from the male point of view; they are also hopelessly belated texts that have no effect on the narratives to which they contribute. For Daniel, the Heroides are a useful precedent as they allow him to raise questions about the effect of poetry. Can poetry do or change anything? This is an especially pertinent question for Daniel, whose sonnet sequence Delia chronicles the speaker's repeated failure to make any impression on the hard heart of the woman he loves. Related to this is a second question: is poetry justified if its end is immoral? The Complaint of Rosamond functions as a comment both on the Heroides themselves and on Daniel's own sense of himself as a poet.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".