jamie c. fumo. Making Chaucer's<i>Book of the Duchess</i>: Textuality and Reception.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The title of Jamie Fumo's new book succinctly expresses the work's main ambitions: to examine the Book of the Duchess as Chaucer’s inaugural poetic venture and to trace its subsequent ‘remakings’ through generations of publishers, readers, imitators and scholars. While it may seem strange to praise the economy of a 250-page volume dedicated to a 1300-line poem, Fumo adeptly navigates and distils a vast corpus of secondary literature with a clarity that makes her book accessible to the student and invaluable to the scholar. Further, the book argues for the literary importance of the Book of the Duchess (hereafter BD ), and it cautions against ‘over-determined' readings that would interpret BD through the lens of Chaucer's later and better known works, especially the Canterbury Tales . Such interpretations risk distorting BD by assuming that Chaucer's mentality and historical circumstances remained constant over the course of a decade or more. BD becomes simply a prelude to the Middle English masterworks of the 1380s; whereas, it is in fact a ‘fundamentally multilingual' work that ‘creatively engages cultural divisions' between French and English in the court of Chaucer's day (p. 78).
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 0.003 |
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".