Bibliographic record
Abstract
Medieval Studies at Carleton University are in a state of change right now. Recent retirements in some departments have meant that some offerings have disappeared, while recent hirings in other departments have led to an increase in the number and variety of courses offered there. A self-directed interdisciplinary B.A. in Medieval Studies is currently on the books, but has not often been taken up in recent years. Students usually study the Middle Ages as part of a more traditional disciplinary degree program (B.A. in History, B.A. in English). In the History department right now, one course on the Middle Ages is offered, a survey of the history of medieval England, and medieval history is listed as one of the supervised fields for the M.A.. In the College of the Humanities, students have the opportunity to take a more general introduction to the history of the Middle Ages, or a survey of medieval philosophy. Offerings in history and philosophy thus consist mainly of survey courses at the undergraduate level. Survey courses of medieval and Renaissance literature are offered by the French and English departments. Students in French may also take a course in History of the French Language and occasionally a fourth-year seminar in medieval French literature. In the English department, undergraduate students may pursue medieval studies beyond the survey level in a 300-level Chaucer course or in a 400-level seminar in medieval literature whose specific topic varies each year. Graduate courses in medieval literature are also offered each year in the English department's M.A. program. Independent reading courses, too, are offered, while courses such as History of the English Language (which has not been offered in recent years) are being revived. Thus, in some disciplines at Carleton the opportunity to study the Middle Ages has declined, but in others that opportunity has increased and will continue to do so.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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 teacher head, 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".