Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this insightful study, Gillian Adler situates time at the heart of Chaucer’s ethical and artistic concerns across his works. Adler demonstrates how, in Chaucer’s poetry, time proliferates in many different subjective forms. This temporal excess becomes an opportunity: as Adler explains, ‘Chaucer’s works suggest that one can take measures to develop an ethical temporal perspective and even rely on subjectivity to harness time to one’s individual advantage when grappling with the temporal dilemmas that arise from the position of historical immersion’ (p. 4). In order to understand the stakes of such dilemmas, Adler situates Chaucer’s temporal ethics in conversation with philosophical sources such as Boethius’s Consolation of Philosophy and Augustine’s Confessions as well as with recent work on feminist and queer temporalities by scholars including Julia Kristeva and Valerie Traub. Even as this project engages philosophical and ethical questions, it remains grounded in Chaucer’s practice as poet. Adler argues that narrative poetry gives Chaucer a valuable tool for representing and manipulating subjective temporal experience. Among the many forms of close textual analysis used in this study, Adler pays special attention to the relation between narrative time and story time, emphasising how, when these two temporalities diverge, possibilities open up for readers to recognise hidden or paradoxical forms of temporal experience. This approach helps Adler to bring moments across Chaucer’s works into conversation with one another, from the highly mathematical time-reckonings in the frame tale of the Canterbury Tales to the time of mourning and memory in the Book of the Duchess.
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 | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.003 |
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.
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".