Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this volume, Andrew Cole provides a fascinating discussion of the intersection between Lollardy and literature. Though numerous scholars have discussed Wyclif in the past, touching upon major authors in the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries, none have taken their literary works as a primary focus. He begins with a synopsis of the current understanding of Wycliffism—assembling a picture of the ecclesiastical response to heresy, the results of the Blackfriars Council, as well as the basic terminology used to target Wyclif's followers—only to propose that he will challenge many of the basic perceptions of these circumstances on a historical and literary level. One of Cole's central claims is that Wycliffism brought something new to writing in the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries. Considering many capstones of the late medieval canon, he argues for ‘the necessity of Wycliffism to the English literary canon’ (p. xiv). The majority of this book is taken up, however, not with a history of the influence of Lollardy on the poetic imagination of fourteenth- and fifteenth-century writers, but rather with a history of Wycliffism as an ‘ideologically diverse and aesthetically enabling feature of late medieval literary culture and politics’ (p. xiii).
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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".