Notice bibliographique
Résumé
The Autumn 2012 meeting of Northern Renaissance Seminar was held at Leeds Trinity University College on 8 September 2012, with theme of Disability and Renaissance. The theme was intended to address a perceived lack of engagement thus far with critical theory by scholars of Renaissance literature and culture.The conference organizer, Dr Susan Anderson of Leeds Trinity, welcomed delegates and introduced keynote speaker, Dr Allison Hobgood from Willamette University, Oregon. Hobgood's talk, Modern Disability Studies: Beholding Milton, started with a discussion of ethical beholding as a way of avoiding excluding people from critical discourse, and as a way of combating normative encouragement to ignore difference. Hobgood argued that disabled was an operational identity category in English Renaissance and that representations of in period are not always merely metaphorical, but can also tell us something of lived experience of people. Indeed, she asserted that material conditions of illness, injury, and childbirth would have made impairment more rather than less visible than it is now.The second part of keynote speech was a round-up of state of field in USA, detailing current research on aspects of as diverse as dwarf aesthetics in The Faerie Queene, and autism and theory of mind in connection with Book of Common Prayer. Hobgood's vision for future of studies in early modern period necessitates resisting charges of anachronism in order to enable socially responsible dialogue anti-ableist politics and advocacy in scholarship and teaching.The final part of keynote speech was a Miltonic case study, critiquing traditional scholarly discourses surrounding Milton's blindness and instead positioning Paradise Lost as part of a disability aesthetic. In this paradigm Milton's God is the ultimate normate and his angels are ableist superhumans, while Satan stands against their definitions of what it means to be fit.Following keynote speech, first panel, chaired by Dr Liz Oakley-Brown (Lancaster University) was on Sexuality. Dr Amritesh Singh, from University of York, spoke on Masculinities in Mary Sidney's The Tragedie of Antonie, looking at links between compulsory able-bodiedness and compulsory (marital) heterosexuality. The paper examined crisis that occurs when a body becomes by age or injury and how this impacts on gender. The other paper in this panel was my bisexual approach to examining liminality of gender and psyche in Spenser and Shakespeare, an argument that these texts offer ways to present positive, festive outcomes for madness. This reading was welcomed as being particularly important to a presentist approach to early modern texts, taking into account impact of exclusionary readings for present-day queer and spectators and readers.The next panel was devoted to and was chaired by keynote speaker Allison Hobgood. Dr Liam Haydon, from Manchester University, spoke on Milton and Universal Blindness, arguing that Paradise Lost is not an account of an individual's blindness but rather taps into an early modern metaphorical understanding of blindness as denoting a loss of virtue. Haydon compared quotations from Paradise Lost with King James and Geneva Bible verses from Psalms, describing being compassed about by enemies and calling for help. Haydon argued that doubly reconfigures his own and challenges his audience to see right. Then Adleen Crapo from Toronto presented her paper Staging Disabled Authorship in Early Modern Literature: The Cases of Paul Scarron and John Milton, focusing on two writers with acquired disabilities. Crapo outlined how their enemies and detractors used Milton's blindness and Scarron's physical deformities (probably caused by rheumatic fever) to call their morality into question, and how both men used rhetoric and self-publicity to counter these accusations. …
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».