On <i>Raptus,</i> Quitclaims, and Precedents in Staundon v. Chaucer–Chaumpaigne: An Afterword
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT The two documents we presented in The Chaucer Review 57.4 (2022) changed everything we knew about Chaucer’s relationship with Cecily Chaumpaigne. We showed that in this case raptus does not refer to rape or violent crime but to procurement in the form of poaching a servant, an action made illegal by the Statute and Ordinance of Laborers (1349/51). The new records clarify that Chaucer and Chaumpaigne were co-defendants not opponents, being sued together by Thomas Staundon, Chaumpaigne’s former employer. The present article explains in greater depth how Chaumpaigne’s two quitclaims are concerned with procurement, not rape or abduction, and labor law. This article also introduces precedents and analogues, demonstrating that medieval lawyers might regard the procurement of an employee under the Statute of Laborers to amount to raptus custodie, or ravishment of ward. Finally, we suggest that the case of Staundon v. Chaucer–Chaumpaigne belongs to the long history of the noncompete clause.
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 | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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".