Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Ovid offered Chaucer more than a repository of myths or a toolkit of poetic techniques: he facilitated ways of thinking about poetic identity, the nature of storytelling, and the permeability of texts. This chapter situates Chaucer as a dynamic partner in and active contributor to Ovidian intertextuality. The textual collisions, ethical calibrations, and reciprocal metamorphoses that characterize the intertextual relationship between these two poets distinguish Chaucer not simply as a conveyor of or apprentice to Ovid, but as a collaborator in an Ovidian poetic. Ovid configures for Chaucer the radical permeability of texts. Furthermore, Ovidian encounters in Chaucer’s poetry often coincide with the portrayal of books in a state of formation or contestation. This chapter focuses on both poets’ representations of temporality, the multiform Ovidianisms that have been attributed to Chaucer, and the pertinence of Ovid to a view of Chaucer as a self-conscious and intertextually adept vernacular poet.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.472 | 0.221 |
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".