MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2159107455 · doi:10.3138/flor.25.008

Scottish Poets and English Stanzas: <i>Schir Thomas Norny</i> and Dunbar’s Use of Tail-Rhyme

2008· article· en· W2159107455 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Rhiannon Purdie

Bibliographic record

VenueFlorilegium · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicMedieval Literature and History
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsStanzaPoetryRhymePraiseLiteratureMetreEnglish poetryPhilosophyArtSubject (documents)HistoryComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

It is a tradition almost amounting to a rule for literary critics to praise the late medieval Scottish poet William Dunbar for his great variety and mastery of poetic technique. In terms of his exploration of stanzaic patterns, however, Dunbar is relatively conservative. In his shorter poems, he has a discernible preference for rhymed stanzas of four or five lines, usually made up of the four- or five-stress lines most prevalent in fifteenth-century English and Scottish poetry. He does not invent new metrical schemes nor does he use an especially large range of them, considering the number of poems he wrote. He does, however, show an unusual flair for marrying form and sense. W. H. Auden comments admiringly, “He knows exactly the kind of verse which will suit any given subject, exactly what can be got out of a metre or a stanza form.”.

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 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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.238
Threshold uncertainty score0.695

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.032
GPT teacher head0.189
Teacher spread0.157 · 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 teacher head, 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
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFlorilegiumSame topicMedieval Literature and HistoryFrench-language works237,207