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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article offers a new interpretation of the pilgrimage framework for Chaucer’s Canterbury Tales. I argue that the Tales have an ironic relationship to books that bear them, one that confronts readers with the difference between their own experience and the author’s fictions. My case is empirical as well as literary: it relies on transnational taxonomies of multi-text codices, and overlooked physical evidence of fifteenth-century bookbinding techniques. I suggest that in their ordering of Chaucer’s text and in their various and dynamic forms, manuscripts of the Tales successfully instantiate Chaucer’s dynamic idea of his text, the complex conditions for pre-print book production, and the disaggregated forms of the medieval codex. The Tales are thus shaped as an answer to the question posted by my title—are The Canterbury Tales a book?—and to some of Chaucer’s broader questions, about experience, authority, and the limits to human modes of knowing.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.017 | 0.005 |
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 it