Complicating the Allegory: Spenser and Religion in Recent Scholarship
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Presque tous les travaux récents sur la poésie d’Edmund Spenser et les convictions qui la soutiennent ont insisté sur la complexité, l’ambivalence ou l’ambiguïté de l’auteur. Certains critiques maintiennent que la situation de la religion dans l’Europe pré-moderne était flou en elle-même et qu’elle offrait plus de choix qu’une simple division entre Protestant et Catholique. D’autres mettent en valeur les nuances qui existaient même au sein d’une seule communauté confessionnelle. Et pour à peu près tous les spensériens actuels,The Faerie Queene, Amoretti et Epithalamion possèdent trop de subtilité linguistique et un esprit trop interrogatif pour être facilement classés. Cet article conclut que le traitement par Spenser de la réforme grégorienne du calendrier et les traces de textes liturgiques plus anciens Catholiques ou inspirés par le Catholicisme indiquent aussi que son imaginaire religieux était à la fois large et en quelque sorte indécis.
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 | 0.006 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.011 | 0.036 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.000 |
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.
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".