MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4376106140 · doi:10.53288/0361.1.09

How to Domesticate a Georgian Goblin

2023· book-chapter· en· W4376106140 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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenuePunctum Books · 2023
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicFolklore, Mythology, and Literature Studies
Canadian institutionsTrent University
FundersAustralian Research Council
KeywordsGeorgianFolkloreDomesticationDialog boxHistoryArtSociologyGenealogyLiteraturePhilosophyEcologyBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A fictionalized dialog assembled out of real folkloric narratives of various kinds, the paper acts as an overview of the various kinds of goblins in the folklore of the country of Georgia. A common motif of Georgian imaginings of human-goblin relationships revolves around whether the goblins are homeless (Chinkas, Alis) and therefore can be forcibly domesticated by cutting their unshorn hair or nails; or whether they have a home of their own somewhere (Kajis, Tqashmapa), in which case, they cannot be domesticated to become servants in your household. Each goblin type represents a kind of weird version of a known kind of human generic social other, and the imagined perilous social or sexual relationships one can have with them reveal anxieties about corresponding relationships with ordinary social others, particularly the very large number of female nymph-like spirits, which pointedly dwell on anxieties revolving around exogamous marriage to strangers and marriage by abduction.

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 categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.738
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.003

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 head0.041
GPT teacher head0.231
Teacher spread0.190 · 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