MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4413277680 · doi:10.3138/flor-2023-0007

Misogyny and the BBC: Alisoun’s treatment in Chaucer’s <i>The Miller’s Tale</i> and the BBC’s modern adaptation

2025· article· en· W4413277680 on OpenAlexaffvenue
D. Malcolm Maxwell

Bibliographic record

VenueFlorilegium · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicThemes in Literature Analysis
Canadian institutionsTrent University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMillerAdaptation (eye)HistoryLiteratureArtPsychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article compares Chaucer’s treatment of Alisoun in The Miller’s Tale with the British Broadcasting Corporation’s (BBC’s) treatment of Alison in its modern adaptation, which is shown to be more misogynist than the medieval tale. Chaucer’s Alisoun holds sexual power over the men in the tale, and she is more cunning than they are, avoiding any punishment or ridicule at the end of the tale. At the end of the BBC’s version, Alison is left helplessly standing at the side of the road waiting for Nick. Meanwhile, Nick is on a bus to Canterbury and has already found another couple to swindle. The viewers are left to wonder what will happen to Alison, since she has already left her husband, John, and was expecting to run away with Nick. The BBC’s version makes Alison seem foolish for falling for Nick and lets Nick come out on top, rather than Alison. Alison is treated like an object to be used and exchanged among men. The BBC’s ending and treatment of Alison highlights our society’s misogynies and views that women who “misbehave” should be punished in some way. The fact that many of Chaucer’s female characters (including Alisoun) have some sovereignty, and the fact that the BBC’s modern adaptation took away any power or agency that Alison could have had at the end of the story, sheds light on how far we have yet to go in dealing with problems related to misogyny in our society.

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 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 categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.907
Threshold uncertainty score0.509

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.211
Teacher spread0.200 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFlorilegiumSame topicThemes in Literature AnalysisFrench-language works237,207