MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2806485385 · doi:10.71781/14593

Gender Performativity in Chaucer’s Troilus and Criseyde and Shakespeare’s Troilus and Cressida

2017· dissertation· en· W2806485385 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Crystelle Cotnoir-Thériault

Bibliographic record

VenueOpen MIND · 2017
Typedissertation
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicFolklore, Mythology, and Literature Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersBishop's University
KeywordsPerformativityLiteratureArtGender studiesSociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Mon mémoire s’intéresse à la performance des genres dans l’histoire de Troïlus et Criseyde telle que présentée dans Troilus and Criseyde de Geoffrey Chaucer et Troilus and Cressida de William Shakespeare. En s’appuyant sur la théorie de Judith Butler, mon analyse explore d’abord l’influence de l’amour courtois sur les attentes sociales dépeintes dans les deux versions du récit. Les règles d’Andreas Capellanus servent de base pour comprendre les restrictions imposées par l’amour courtois et leur effet sur l’histoire d’amour de Troïlus et Criseyde. Ensuite, les thèmes de l’amour et de la guerre aident à définir la performance de la masculinité de Troïlus et Diomede, tout en permettant de comparer leur relation avec Criseyde. Finalement, la commodification du corps de la femme est présentée comme une conséquence inévitable de la performance de la fémininité telle qu’encouragée par la société. L’alternance entre les textes de Chaucer et de Shakespeare montre que la performance des genres a très peu évolué entre le Moyen-Âge et la Renaissance et suggère ultimement que certaines attentes sont toujours les mêmes dans la société occidentale contemporaine.

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.062
Threshold uncertainty score0.123

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0120.028
Scholarly communication0.0070.003
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.000

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 head0.064
GPT teacher head0.317
Teacher spread0.253 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations0
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOpen MINDSame topicFolklore, Mythology, and Literature StudiesFrench-language works237,207