MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4225906551 · doi:10.1353/ten.2022.0005

Further Research Is Needed (FRIN): A Brief Overview

2022· article· en· W4225906551 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Kathryn Klingebiel

Bibliographic record

VenueTenso · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicMedieval European Literature and History
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPoetrySuccessor cardinalHistoryClassicsHumanitiesArtLiteratureSociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Further Research Is Needed (FRIN): A Brief Overview Kathryn Klingebiel Keywords Occitan studies, Occitan bibliography, AIEO, Association internationale d’études occitanes, FRIN, “further research is needed,” FSIN, “further study is needed,” FWIN, “further work is needed,”, CIRDOC—Institut occitan de cultura, research leads Tenso’s op-ed rubric continues into its third year, inspired by lessons the editors first learned from their respective maîtres, Robert Taylor (Toronto) and Yakov Malkiel (Berkeley) and informed by a growing number of colleagues willing to tackle the question: Where should Occitan studies be headed? If there is any concept central to the op-ed pieces published in Tenso 35 and 36, it must be “interconnectedness.” There is striking agreement among our earliest contributors. Whether addressing troubadour poetry or the entire Occitan literary canon, the lexicon or digital resources, they speak to the importance of connecting future studies with culture and history. William Paden would expand the study of troubadour poetry across time and history, singling out five directions for the future (87). Giuseppe Noto calls attention to the tension between permanence and innovation, particularly in zones of contact, where hybridization and recodification are likely (98). For Fritz Peter Kirsch, the key concept is “interculturality,” as he calls for international cooperation in developing “une conception nonethnocentriste de l’Europe des différences” (“Il est grand temps” 104n1) and a new history of Occitan literature. Rosa Medina Granda champions the interconnectedness of “rhizomes,” that is, ideas that are multiple, interconnecting between heterogeneous nodes of study (110). Bill Burgwinkle argues for a “more global and interconnected view of troubadour production,” with updating of critical editions and more interpretation “in an anti-nationalistic perspective” (164). And Hervé Lieutard celebrates the advances wrought by digital applications in many fields, e.g., in lexicography (particularly lemmatization, graphy, and lexicon), with increasing power to “interconnecter l’ensemble des ressources numériques ou existantes” (173). For an overview of relatively recent Occitan research trends, one need look no further than the Actes of the 2017 AIEO congress in Albi. The focus on connections was evident in the very opening pages of the proceedings of that meeting, in the plenaries by Walter [End Page 117] Meliga and Fritz Peter Kirsch. Meliga notes, for example, that the legend of l’amor de lonh has distorted both textual study and the resulting interpretation of Jaufre Rudel’s poems (27). Kirsch calls for “une ouverture interculturelle” in the study of Occitan literature, with necessary attention to “la pluralité des langues et des cultures” (“Pour une réorientation” 36).1 To take another example, Camps and Couffignal subtitle their succinct overview of digitized Occitan corpora “problèmes et perspectives de travail,” calling for data to be “interopérables, documentées, disponibles en ligne” (650). This attention to inter-connectedness, by any name, is honored among senior scholars. In his review of Jean-Pierre Chambon’s seminal 2015 article aimed at young researchers, Jean-François Courouau paraphrased Chambon: “Le chercheur se doit d’appréhender son objet en tenant compte de l’état de la recherche et des avancées non seulement de sa propre discipline mais aussi des disciplines connexes” (56). Courouau later acknowledged “… la nécessité d’une approche qui se doit, si elle veut servir sa discipline et le champ des études occitanes, d’éviter tout cloisonnement disciplinaire en s’ouvrant au contraire aux apports extérieurs” (57). Rubrics in the annual Tenso bibliographies likewise bear witness to the respect shown to intrinsic interconnections between literature, language, history, and culture. In Wells, we find “Influence. The troubadours outside of medieval Occitania and their reception in later centuries” (206) and “History of Romance studies and Occitan studies” (212); in Parayre, “Modern References to the Middle Ages” (240); in Klingebiel, “Occitan Language in History” (298). The present contribution positions itself at the intersection of bibliography and future desiderata. The AIEO website makes available various efforts to provide Occitan bibliography to the scholarly world (see below), as well as a 1985 publication of desiderata, “Les Tâches de la recherche occitane.” This 28-page [End Page 118] booklet covers lyric, verse texts, and prose (with some omissions), ending with “Les historiens et le fait occitan” — this...

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)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.016
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: Reporting · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.993
Threshold uncertainty score0.090

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.016
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0120.009
Science and technology studies0.0030.003
Scholarly communication0.0080.014
Open science0.0020.005
Research integrity0.0060.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0270.014

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 head0.196
GPT teacher head0.319
Teacher spread0.123 · 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.

Study designTheoretical or conceptual
DomainReporting
GenreCommentary

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
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTensoSame topicMedieval European Literature and HistoryFrench-language works237,207