Bibliographic record
Abstract
A century and more ago George Lyman Kittredge proclaimed the Pardoner in Chaucer’s Canterbury Tales to be a lost soul on the pilgrimage to Canterbury. Assuming that Chaucer held his own values, Kittredge amply displayed the prevailing critical interest in psychologically complex characters, but not a hint of a prevailing fear of the queer that erupted in Chaucer criticism in the twentieth century. The Pardoner’s fortunes have varied since then, with historicist arguments about whether he is to be considered homosexual, and what “homosexual” as a label would mean when applied anachronistically to Chaucer’s social context. But also the discussion has focussed on the relationship between the Pardoner’s manifest immorality as an ecclesiastical conman and his sexual indeterminism: what does Chaucer mean by putting these things together? One thing for certain: the Pardoner has something to say. In the following essay, Roisin Boyle weighs the evidence for the complex question about the complex Pardoner, how culpable is Chaucer, within the limits of his own culture, of homophobia? In Boyle’s nuanced reading, neither character nor author can be simply glorified or simply damned. Dr. Melissa Furrow
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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".