MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3204813871 · doi:10.26522/tg.v5i1.2359

Table Manners

2020· article· en· W3204813871 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Christopher Wesolowski

Bibliographic record

Venuethe general brock university Undergraduate journal of history · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicHistorical Influence and Diplomacy
Canadian institutionsBrock University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCourtesyTable (database)Order (exchange)Simple (philosophy)PoliticsPopulationHistorySociologyPolitical scienceEpistemologyComputer scienceLawPhilosophyDemographyBusiness

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Why do we eat the way we do? It is a simple question, but one that is rooted in a deep history of social customs and politics. This paper surveys the past thousand years of table manners through looking at popular courtesy handbooks both translated and written in late medieval Western Europe. It has been argued that table manners are imposed by the royalty and the upper echelons of society in order to have control over the functions of the middle and lower classes, but this paper extends this idea to explore how the population sought to either make fun of or emulate their higher ups. By looking at the history of table manners a great deal can be explored regarding the way in which medieval peoples thought about how they ate, and why it mattered.

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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.398
Threshold uncertainty score0.393

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 studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.039
GPT teacher head0.252
Teacher spread0.213 · 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
Published2020
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuethe general brock university Undergraduate journal of historySame topicHistorical Influence and DiplomacyFrench-language works237,207