MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2314515452 · doi:10.1093/res/hgw028

jamie c. fumo. Making Chaucer's<i>Book of the Duchess</i>: Textuality and Reception.

2016· article· en· W2314515452 on OpenAlex
Sarah Powrie

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Review of English Studies · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicMedieval Literature and History
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Saskatchewan
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLiteratureTextualityPraisePoetryTRACE (psycholinguistics)AllegoryHistoryCLARITYPhilosophyArtLinguistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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.

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)0.001
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: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.526
Threshold uncertainty score0.428

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
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 head0.048
GPT teacher head0.279
Teacher spread0.231 · 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