Hylomorphic Recursion and Non-Decisional Poetics in the <i>Canterbury Tales</i>
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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.
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.024 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".