A Computational Approach to Source Adaptation in Thomas Malory’s Morte Darthur
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
The many source texts that late medieval adaptors like Thomas Malory worked with constitute a potential wealth of information concerning the genesis of the linguistic and stylistic features shaping their works. As a result, their texts provide a useful framework for further developing and testing methods of stylometric analysis in the context of adaptation as a collaborative form of authorship. Our interdisciplinary team has undertaken a stylometric analysis of the eight different sections of Thomas Malory’s Morte Darthur, in order to identify differences between these sections and how they correspond to the language of the Old French and Middle English sources that Malory is known to have worked with in the different sections of his work. Our findings provide a basis for addressing unresolved scholarly questions concerning Malory’s Morte, such as the nature of the source used for his “Tale of Sir Gareth” and whether Malory himself was responsible for the differences between the two surviving versions of his “Roman War” episode in Book II of the Morte. They further shed light on ongoing controversies concerning the overall textual unity of the Morte and the process by which Malory created the different sections of his work—an issue that lies at the heart of broader debates concerning where Malory and other late medieval adaptors are to be situated on the continuum between “faithful translator” and “original author.”
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 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it