Bibliographic record
Abstract
Every three years scholars from all over the world converge to discuss medieval courtly literature in its various manifestations: the International Courtly Literature Society reconvenes. The meeting in Vancouver in 1998 was truly international in nature. Against the backdrop of the stunning mountain scenery, the warm spirit of collegiality was outdone only by the unexpected summer heat. Almost two hundred speakers presented papers, and the participants included members from four continents and more than a dozen countries. Six different language groups are represented in the plenary talks, and the volume contains papers in four different languages. Since no single volume could contain all the stimulating presentations from six days’ worth of scholarly exchange, this is of necessity a selection of the papers read and submitted for consideration. The book is organized in two major sections, the first containing the five plenary addresses and the second, twenty-nine papers. The plenaries suggest the range of approaches and disciplines involved in the study of courtly literature. We have arranged the shorter papers into groupings by methodology or subject matter. The categories ref lect both current preoccupations and perennial concerns, the best of both traditional and innovative methodologies. The conference was greatly enhanced by the presence of world-class musicians, including the late John Fleagle, Anne Azéma, the group Chanterie, and others. Early Music Vancouver advised us and co-sponsored performances. While none of the superlative musical performances could find their way into a printed book, we were entertained during the banquet by a spiritual descendant of Marie de France who presented a hitherto-unknown lai , the text of which is reproduced here as an “après-propos.” We are grateful to many organizations and individuals without whom the conference would never have taken place. Funding was provided principally by the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada. We thank in particular: Chantal Phan, the principal organizer, who ran a great meeting; Donald Maddox, who gave us the benefit of his experience in the planning stages; Richard Unger, who provided invaluable help on site; students Shannon McKie and Ineke Hardy, who helped with organization in the year preceding, including setting up the web site; other colleagues at the University of British Columbia, especially Nancy Frelick and Karl Zaenker, who gave advice and much practical assistance; the eleven volunteers who were stalwart during the conference; and Simon Fraser University, which graciously provided funding and arranged for us to use their facilities for a day.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.504 | 0.344 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".