MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4327637187 · doi:10.1017/9781571137937.017

Raymo, Robert E., and Elaine E. Whitaker, eds. The Mirroure of the Worlde: A Middle English Translation of “Le Miroir du monde.” Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2003. Pp. x; 644 (Ruth).

2006· other· en· W4327637187 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Kevin J. Ruth

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typeother
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicMedieval Literature and History
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMiddle EnglishArtFifteenthNaturalismArt historyClassicsHistoryPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Editors Raymo and Whitaker provide the first scholarly edition of MS Bodley 283, a fifteenth-c. manuscript which contains a Middle English translation of the French Miroir du monde (c.1270). The original French text is a significant work of lay religious instruction, one mandated by the Fourth Lateran Council (1215). The Middle English Bodley manuscript is richly decorated with naturalistic pen drawings by several artists; these illustrations (which are not reproduced in the edition) add an artistic flair to the didactic contents. Given the size of the manuscript (186 leaves), the edition is a rather weighty tome, with a format common to scholarly editions: an introduction that includes a description of the manuscript; the background and sources of the Miroir du monde ; a discussion of the translation's language, the date of the manuscript (c.1440–c.1450), its translator (supposedly Stephen Scrope — there is no conclusive proof); and an overview of the editorial procedure used in preparing this rendering. The principal text follows, with textual and explanatory notes, a glossary, a bibliography, and an index of names completing the edition. The introductory material is satisfactory, apart from the section devoted to editorial procedure, which is not as comprehensive as a textual critic would wish (comprising less than two full pages, 26–28). Also, the reader is often unsure as to the editorial policy the editors have chosen; for example, they note that they have kept interventions to a minimum, and that they provide them only “to supply omissions and correct scribal and authorial errors” (26). Following this statement is a declaration that an elimination of all textual errors would entail a misrepresention and distortion of the translation (ibid.). To be sure, the editors are facing a translation of a French text, which is a unique venture in and of itself, as it tests their knowledge of this foreign language; however, in a sense, their statements also serve as an opening apology for any errors contained in the edition. This rendering, then, is distinctive in that it has to permit errors in order to keep the spirit of the translation, but annotations would have explained these circumstances to the reader.

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)0.004
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: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.032
Threshold uncertainty score0.106

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.003
Science and technology studies0.0020.002
Scholarly communication0.0050.006
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0020.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0320.023

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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.165
Teacher spread0.154 · 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
GenreOther

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
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicMedieval Literature and History→French-language works237,207→