MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2154622710 · doi:10.3138/flor.22.005

Boccaccio’s <i>Decameron</i> 6.10 and Chaucer’s <i>Canterbury Tales</i> VI.287-968: Thinking on Your Feet and the Set-Piece

2005· article· en· W2154622710 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueFlorilegium · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicMedieval Literature and History
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPrologueTheme (computing)LiteraturePoetryStorytellingHistoryArtNarrative

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Both Boccaccio, in his Decameron, and Chaucer, in The Canterbury Tales, place sermons deliveredby highly skilled preachers very nearly at the centre of their story collections. Boccaccio’s Fra Cipolla appears in Decameron 6.10 and Chaucer’s Pardoner, in Canterbury Tales, VI.287-968 (“The Pardoner’s Prologue and Tale”)—according to the order of the tales most widely adopted in modern editions, that of the Ellesmere manuscript (San Marino, California, Huntington Library MS EL. 26. C. 9). Boccaccio gives particular emphasis to the importance of his Cipolla by placing the master preacher in the last tale told on the sixth day of storytelling (the day when wit is the common theme of all ten tales). Chaucer’s preacher appears in the tale preceding Fragment VII of the Canter-bury Tales; it is in Fragment VII that poetic language becomes a central theme. In both Boccaccio’s Decameron 6.10 and Chaucer’s Canter-bury Tales VI.287-968, words are power, and in both tales it is significant that those words appear in sermons, a popular form of medieval literature listened to byliterate and illiterate, aristocrats and lowly alike. Preachers of sermons in the Middle Ages were as much literary figures as were storytellers; they competed with the secular entertainers for the attention of popular audiences and resorted to “artifices similar to those of their old rivals.”My concern this essay is to compare the oratorical performances of Fra Cipolla and the Pardoner — one an improvisation and the other, a feat of memory. Memorized delivery assures coherence and exactness; impromptu speech has the virtue of naturalness and liveliness. Quintilian, one of the classicalrhetoricians admired in the Middle Ages and actually named in Boccaccio’s tale, favoured the well-memorized speech because it could be made to seem extempore. The coincidence in genre, character, theme, and placement of Boccaccio’s Decameron 6.10 and Chaucer’s Canterbury Tales VI.287-968 becomes especially interesting if there is even a chance that Chaucerknew the Decameron and its tale of Fra Cipolla.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.695
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.019
GPT teacher head0.218
Teacher spread0.198 · 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