MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2734070948 · doi:10.33043/biarhs.1.1.15-31

A Critical Edition of Little John's Answer to Robin Hood and the Duke of Lancaster (1727)

2017· article· en· W2734070948 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Stephen Basdeo

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Bulletin of the International Association for Robin Hood Studies · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicPhilippine History and Culture
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersUniversity of CambridgeWilfrid Laurier UniversityRobin Hood FoundationUniversity of OxfordYale University
KeywordsBalladCritical editionArt historyHistoryClassicsArtLiteraturePoetry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article is a critical edition of Little John's Answer to Robin Hood and the Duke of Lancaster, a newly discovered ballad dating to 1727. The discovery of the ballad in 2015 has mandated the curation of a critical edition with scholarly apparatus and bibliography.

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)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.026
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: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.074
Threshold uncertainty score0.170

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.026
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0120.017
Scholarly communication0.0090.005
Open science0.0010.004
Research integrity0.0030.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0160.004

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 head0.026
GPT teacher head0.324
Teacher spread0.297 · 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
GenreOther

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

Citations1
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Bulletin of the International Association for Robin Hood StudiesSame topicPhilippine History and CultureFrench-language works237,207