MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4409817424 · doi:10.21983/p3.0067.1.11

Medieval Studies in the Subjunctive Mood

2014· book-chapter· en· W4409817424 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 · 2014
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicMedieval Literature and History
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Victoria
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMoodPsychologyHistoryArtClinical psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Let’s just run with it. The potentially instructive, because utterly naïve, thought experiment of entertaining for a moment that we have never been modern. Forget modernism—what if modernitynever happened?Not that we know what “modern” even means, except as an empty qualifier perched with pomp at the crest of history. Then again, that’s precisely the point. Modernity, like Walter Benjamin’s angel of history looking over its shoulder, has always been running from what it no longer wants to be, shouting “not that! not that!” And yet—and it’s a big yet —if we are becoming increasingly convinced by Bruno Latour, then not only were we never not medieval, but medieval no longer has to mean “premodern.” If Benja-min’s angel of modern history can’t stop looking back-ward and defining itself in opposition to what it sees as a sort of negative immanence (what, in the past, it fears and loathes), then perhaps “to be medieval,” as Andrew Cole and D. Vance Smith have put it, “is to posit a future in the very act of self-recognition, to offer a memory or memo-rial to a future that will be recognized at a time and place not yet known.”1 A future, that is, which positively trans-cends presence.

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)0.001
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 score0.814
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.070
GPT teacher head0.246
Teacher spread0.177 · 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