MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1010613622 · doi:10.1017/cbo9780511483660.010

Conclusion

2005· book-chapter· en· W1010613622 on OpenAlexaff
Alexander Leggatt

Bibliographic record

VenueCambridge University Press eBooks · 2005
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicIrish and British Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDehumanizationIdentity (music)Literal (mathematical logic)LiteratureSociologyPsychoanalysisCriminologyPsychologyPhilosophyArtAestheticsLinguisticsAnthropology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We began with Lavinia dehumanized by violence; we end with Macbeth and Lady Macbeth, the perpetrators of violence, humanized. We began with Lavinia unable to name the crime because she has been physically deprived of language; we end with Macbeth and Lady Macbeth unable to name the crime because they are afraid of language. As the ideas of violation and identity develop through these seven tragedies we see a series of reactions and contradictions as one play ricochets against another; and we see an internalization of what in Titus Andronicus is physical and literal. To begin with the contradictions: the physical assault on Lavinia includes taking her identity, which her father restores, claiming she is not just a ruined thing, she is still Lavinia. In the family, she gets her name back. The rape has been a parody of a love-encounter, beginning with conventional love-language. Romeo and Juliet come together in a genuine love-encounter which, if we put the plays together, seems to reverse and heal the violence of Lavinia's rape. While Lavinia's loss of identity is a horror, Romeo and Juliet long for a free space in which they would have no names. The involvement of their families, and of Romeo's friends, for whom their names matter, brings violence into the private world of their love and ends in a second wedding night in which Juliet's blood is shed as Lavinia's was.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.149
Threshold uncertainty score0.000

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0030.002
Scholarly communication0.0070.005
Open science0.0020.003
Research integrity0.0030.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.1490.040

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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.232
Teacher spread0.209 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

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

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
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCambridge University Press eBooksSame topicIrish and British StudiesFrench-language works237,207