MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2735828790 · doi:10.5325/chaucerrev.52.3.0253

Hylomorphic Recursion and Non-Decisional Poetics in the <i>Canterbury Tales</i>

2017· article· en· W2735828790 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Chaucer Review · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicMedieval Literature and History
Canadian institutionsConcordia University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPoeticsNominalismProblem of universalsPhilosophyMaterialismRelation (database)RealismLiteratureOrder (exchange)EpistemologyPoetryArtLinguistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract This article begins with an admittedly improbable claim: Chaucerian poetics operates via a process of “hylomorphic recursion.” This phrases means that Chaucer engineers only two elements, Form and Matter, by means of only two relations, Formalist and Materialist. The formalist relation corresponds to medieval realism: universals order particulars. The materialist relation corresponds to medieval nominalism: particulars do not conform to universals. The article deploys this organon to read the Nun's Priest's Tale and propose a new understanding of Chaucer's relationship to the major philosophical positions of the fourteenth century. Critical dispute over the nature of this relationship is unresolved, because Chaucer refuses to decide between realism and nominalism. The article then turns from the Nun's Priest's Tale to condensed readings of the Wife of Bath, the Franklin, the Clerk, and the Pardoner in order to argue that Chaucer has an excellent word for this suspension of decision: love.

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)0.001
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: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.735
Threshold uncertainty score0.576

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.051
GPT teacher head0.279
Teacher spread0.228 · 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