Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this dissertation, I explore the intersection between fraternity and governance within fifteenth-century English literature, arguing that the familial relationships in these texts go beyond the interpersonal and are used by the authors to think through questions of both self-governance and the governing of the polity.Drawing on methods used by historians of emotions, such as Barbara Rosenwein, I trace the usage of terms indicating brotherhood across a variety of genres (romances, plays, sermons, letters, and wills), and consider the depictions of brothers' behaviours, motivations, and speeches in these texts.This analysis reveals that governance and fraternity are linked in several unique but complementary manners in fifteenth-century England, and that authors utilize fraternal relationships to demonstrate a wide variety of good and bad governance of self and others.In each chapter, I trace the discourses of fraternity within a unique conceptual framework: Scriptural foundations, Classical foundations, the Rise of Arthur, the Fall of Arthur, and the Rise of the Gentry.The variety and prominence of discourses of fraternity within the genres and texts studied here demonstrate the power of brotherhood in the cultural imaginary of the period.The authors of these texts all grapple with the doubleedged sword of fraternity, exploring how characters navigate the complexities of brotherhood.The authors use fraternity as a tool to explore how interpersonal relationships can have a larger influence on the polity around them, proving that fraternity, much like authority, can be used and abused for personal gain, often to the detriment of others.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.027 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".