MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4286425655 · doi:10.3138/flor-2022-0002

An Echo of the Remanent

2022· article· en· W4286425655 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueFlorilegium · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicDigital Humanities and Scholarship
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsScholarshipFraming (construction)LiteratureEcho (communications protocol)HistoryClassicsArtArchaeologyLawComputer sciencePolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Thousands of medieval manuscripts have survived to the present day only as literal fragments of their former selves: cut up for binding scrap in the early modern period, initials and miniatures trimmed for framing by collectors and dealers in the Victorian era, and entire codices cut up leaf by leaf by modern biblioclasts. There are at least thirty-thousand fragments in North American collections and exponentially more in Europe and elsewhere. The potential for discovery, pedagogy, scholarship, and public engagement is enormous, and the work has only barely begun. Recent developments in data modeling and image service are making it possible for scholars to digitally reconstruct these broken books, enabling important outcomes for research and teaching. The essays in this volume will engage with medieval manuscript fragments and fragmentology in different ways. This introductory essay surveys the history of fragmenting, fragments, and fragmentology.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.883
Threshold uncertainty score0.993

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.036
GPT teacher head0.212
Teacher spread0.175 · 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