MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2330035048 · doi:10.7756/spst.027.004.77-96

Spenser and the Matter of Poetry

2012· article· en· W2330035048 on OpenAlexaff
Michael Ullyot

Bibliographic record

VenueSpenser Studies A Renaissance Poetry Annual · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicPoetry Analysis and Criticism
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDecorumPoetryLiteratureComplaintMode (computer interface)DictionArtLawComputer sciencePolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Edmund Spenser resisted two forms of material constraints on poets: their reliance on historical circumstance for poetic subjects (or “matter”), and their reliance on patrons for material support. This article uses three poems that comment on these constraints to argue that Spenser used the mode of complaint to address the generic decorum of occasional texts, or poets’ choices of genres to suit their social and historical circumstances: “The Tears of the Muses,” “The Ruins of Time,” and the October eclogue from The Shepheardes Calender.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.026

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0080.038
Scholarly communication0.0070.007
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.034
GPT teacher head0.277
Teacher spread0.243 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations2
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSpenser Studies A Renaissance Poetry AnnualSame topicPoetry Analysis and CriticismFrench-language works237,207