MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3080252495

"All These False Fowls": The Rational Language of Geoffrey Chaucer's Birds and Women

2020· article· en· W3080252495 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Beth Mushumanski

Bibliographic record

Venue˜The œalbatross · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicFolklore, Mythology, and Literature Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIrrationalitySquireDreamExtension (predicate logic)LiteratureArtPhilosophyLinguisticsPsychologyRationalityEpistemologyComputer science
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In Geoffrey Chaucer’s account of a fictional English pilgrimage, The Canterbury Tales (1387–1400), andin his dream vision Parliament of Fowls (ca. 1380), anthropomorphized birds illuminate the complexity of who hasa voice, and, by extension, who is rational and capable ofself-determination. These birds often share a connectionwith the female characters in their tales—either in rolesthat parallel one another (as in the “Manciple’s Tale”) or inthe relationships they share with female characters (like inthe “Squire’s Tale”)—linking the voicelessness of nature tothat of women. Chaucer’s uncanny birds unsettle the boundaries between humans and nature, complicating genderedassumptions of women’s irrationality in Chaucer’s work.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.897
Threshold uncertainty score0.357

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.240
Teacher spread0.218 · 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 designQualitative
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
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venue˜The œalbatrossSame topicFolklore, Mythology, and Literature StudiesFrench-language works237,207