MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2398927995 · doi:10.3138/seminar.52.2.3

Reading in the Dark: Lost Books, Literacy, and Fifteenth-Century German Literature

2016· article· en· W2398927995 on OpenAlex
Jonathan Green

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.

venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueSeminar A Journal of Germanic Studies · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicHistorical, Literary, and Cultural Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFifteenthVernacularReading (process)LiteracyContext (archaeology)GermanPerspective (graphical)LiteratureHistoryClassicsArtSociologyVisual artsPhilosophyLinguistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

While the invention of print has often been treated as a media revolution, a reconsideration of the type and page formats of early printed books suggests considerable continuity in physical makeup, and in book markets as well, between manuscript and print. This continuity in turn suggests that recent research on lost books and missing editions, which points towards a much higher number of lost fifteenth-century editions than previously believed, is also relevant for the study of late medieval manuscripts, especially for smaller vernacular works. Shifting the perspective from the books and manuscripts that survive today to those that likely once existed compels a reconsideration of late medieval literacy and the literary context for smaller works, such as the Stricker’s Pfaffe Amis, that were printed in the fifteenth century.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.808
Threshold uncertainty score0.409

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.275
Teacher spread0.255 · 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