MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Hating Criseyde:

2011· article· en· W4246670496 on OpenAlexaffabout
Jamie C. Fumo

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Chaucer Review · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicMedieval Literature and History
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIconCitationDownloadState (computer science)PublishingHistoryWorld Wide WebLibrary scienceComputer scienceArtLiteratureAlgorithm

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Research Article| December 01 2011 Hating Criseyde:Last Words on a Heroine from Chaucer to Henryson Jamie C. Fumo Jamie C. Fumo McGill University, Montreal, Quebec Search for other works by this author on: This Site Google The Chaucer Review (2011) 46 (1-2): 20–38. https://doi.org/10.5325/chaucerrev.46.1_2.0020 Cite Icon Cite Share Icon Share Twitter Permissions Search Site Citation Jamie C. Fumo; Hating Criseyde:Last Words on a Heroine from Chaucer to Henryson. The Chaucer Review 1 December 2011; 46 (1-2): 20–38. doi: https://doi.org/10.5325/chaucerrev.46.1_2.0020 Download citation file: Zotero Reference Manager EasyBib Bookends Mendeley Papers EndNote RefWorks BibTex toolbar search Search Dropdown Menu toolbar search search input Search input auto suggest filter your search All Scholarly Publishing CollectivePenn State University PressThe Chaucer Review Search Advanced Search The text of this article is only available as a PDF. Copyright © 2011 by The Pennsylvania State University. All rights reserved.2011The Pennsylvania State University Article PDF first page preview Close Modal You do not currently have access to this content.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
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: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.047
Threshold uncertainty score0.156

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0020.002
Scholarly communication0.0050.003
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0030.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0470.016

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 head0.152
GPT teacher head0.253
Teacher spread0.101 · 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
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

Citations2
Published2011
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Chaucer ReviewSame topicMedieval Literature and HistoryFrench-language works237,207