MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3193017077 · doi:10.33137/rr.v44i1.37045

Cestus Responds to Æthiopissa

2021· article· en· W3193017077 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Robert Weldon Whalen

Bibliographic record

VenueRenaissance and Reformation · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicBiblical Studies and Interpretation
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWitnessGeorge (robot)CertaintyPoetryPhilosophyLiteratureHistoryArtArt historyEpistemologyLinguistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Yale Osborn MS. b 197 includes a neglected witness, one of six, to George Herbert’s “Æthiopissa ambit Cestum Diuersi Coloris Virum,” followed by the only known copy of a twenty-two-line reply, “Cesti ad Æthiopissam Responsio.” This latter cannot be said with any certainty to be Herbert’s; it is nevertheless a fascinating rejoinder to perhaps the most un-Herbertian of his poems. This paper provides edited texts, original translations, and apparatus; a description of the manuscript; and consideration of arguments for and against attributing the new poem to Herbert.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.026
Threshold uncertainty score0.051

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0060.003
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0000.002
Research integrity0.0020.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0140.003

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 head0.026
GPT teacher head0.250
Teacher spread0.224 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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

Citations1
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRenaissance and ReformationSame topicBiblical Studies and InterpretationFrench-language works237,207