MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4285545686 · doi:10.3726/med.2021.01.154

David R. Winter, <i>The Llanthony Stories: A Translation of the</i> Narrationes aliquot fabulosae. Toronto: Pontifical Institute of Mediaeval Studies, 2021, x, 173 pp.

2021· article· en· W4285545686 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Scott G. Bruce

Bibliographic record

VenueMediaevistik · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicMedieval Literature and History
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWelshWitnessBishopsClassicsHistoryLiteratureGenealogyArtPhilosophyArchaeologyLawLinguisticsPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract: This slim volume provides a single-text Latin edition and English translation of a fragmentary collection of pithy moral tales composed in the first decades of the thirteenth century. While the seventeenth-century cataloguer of the sole manuscript that preserves them called these stories Narrationes aliquot fabulosae (“Some fanciful tales”), the editor of the present volume has renamed them The Llanthony Stories to reflect the fact that the collection originated at the Augustinian priory of St. Mary of Llanthony in Gloucester. The Llanthony Stories comprise thirty-five short anecdotes featuring a number of well-known historical persons, including kings, bishops, and crusaders, as well as nameless characters of lesser ranks. Many of these stories (or versions thereof) have analogues in contemporary exempla collections attributed to Jacques de Vitry, Caesarius of Heisterbach, and Odo of Chariton, though several are unique to this collection. Taken together, these tales provide “an important and hitherto little noticed witness to ecclesiastical and public life in the Welsh Marches in the decades bracketing 1200” (2).

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.025
Threshold uncertainty score0.051

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.003
Scholarly communication0.0020.003
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0150.003

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 head0.044
GPT teacher head0.270
Teacher spread0.226 · 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
GenreReview

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
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMediaevistikSame topicMedieval Literature and HistoryFrench-language works237,207