MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2973464751 · doi:10.1093/english/efz041

Chaucer’s Gifts: Exchange and Value in the Canterbury Tales. By Robert Epstein

2019· article· en· W2973464751 on OpenAlexaff
David K. Coley

Bibliographic record

VenueEnglish Journal of the English Association · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicMedieval Literature and History
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEthosPoetryOpposition (politics)LiteratureCapitalismClose readingValue (mathematics)ConversationHistorySociologyArtPhilosophyLawLinguisticsPolitics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Readers of Chaucer have long recognized the Canterbury Tales as deeply embedded in the burgeoning commercial environment of the later Middle Ages. Influential analyses by Lee Patterson, R. A. Shoaf, Lianna Farber, and others have revealed how the sprawling poem alternately naturalizes, parodies, embraces, and satirizes the economic and mercantile worlds that Chaucer – son of a wine merchant, long-time controller of the London wool custom, and clerk of the King’s Works – both inhabited and navigated. In Chaucer’s Gifts, Robert Epstein contributes to this critical conversation by reading the Canterbury Tales not strictly through the fourteenth-century mercantile economy but through an adjacent (and occasionally overlapping) gift economy, one structured by an ingrained ethos of reciprocity that functioned in opposition to an incipient, profit-driven capitalism. Drawing from twentieth- and twenty-first-century developments in economic anthropology, as well as from the gift theories proposed by Jacques Derrida and Pierre Bourdieu (both of whom Epstein productively resists), Chaucer’s Gifts illuminates an overlooked aspect of the Canterbury Tales. Epstein offers a nuanced reading of the exchange systems implicit in the poem, revealing in the process how Chaucer articulates ‘the potential for different types of socially generated value than those presumed by market transactions’ (p. 13).

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 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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.578
Threshold uncertainty score0.325

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.181
Teacher spread0.175 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
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
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEnglish Journal of the English AssociationSame topicMedieval Literature and HistoryFrench-language works237,207