MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W110832517

Macbeth: Presented by the Stratford Festival of Canada at the Festival Theatre, Stratford, Ontario

2005· article· en· W110832517 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Justin Shaltz

Bibliographic record

VenueShakespeare bulletin · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicIrish and British Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsArtTragedy (event)DaggerAdventureWhite (mutation)Art historyMAGIC (telescope)BrotherDreamLiteraturePhilosophySociologyTheologyPsychology
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Macbeth Presented by the Stratford Festival of Canada at the Festival Theatre, Stratford, Ontario. August 14-October 29, 2004. Directed by John Wood. Designed by John Ferguson. Lights by Gil Wechsler. Compositions by Alan Laing. Sound by Wade Staples. With Graham Abbey (Macbeth), Lucy Peacock (Lady Macbeth), Walter Borden (Duncan), Gareth Potter (Malcolm), Sean Arbuckle (Banquo), Michael McLachlan (Macduff), Sarah McVie (Lady Macduff), and others. Director John Wood delivered a straightforward, well-performed Macbeth, tightly focused on the title character and his Lady. Wood elected to minimize the paranormal and instead concentrated on the human elements of the tragedy and the effects of hyper-ambition on Macbeth and Lady Macbeth. The choice, however, deprived the play of most of its inherently sinister mood and sense of supernatural seduction. In Wood's production, the witches were more wayward than weird--they seemed simply to be elderly women dressed in rags and spouting vague prophesies. They seemed a natural part of the blasted heaths of Scotland, and there was little sense of sorcery or witchcraft in their appearance or actions. Lost was any feeling of entrapment by external forces; these witches only fortified ideas already within Macbeth's mind. In 2.1, when Macbeth, in an open, billowy white shirt, pondered the dagger and the bloody regicide it offered, Graham Abbey's thane literally wielded a dagger and spoke directly to it. The choice was clearly Macbeth's, his fate firmly within his own hands, and not a supernatural specter that might seduce and destroy both the King and him. The straightforward approach came across as sluggish and unexciting. When Macbeth came to his 3.4 celebratory table after ordering the death of his friend Banquo, the audience did not gasp with horror (as did Macbeth) at the image of a bloodied ghost. Instead of from Macbeth's point of view, we only witnessed the scene from the perspective of the confused banquet guests as the King strangely shouted at an empty chair. Without the visceral image of a slain friend, the scene lacked power as well as tension, and was simply uncomfortable. The coming of Birnam Wood in 5.5 was also presented in a perfunctory manner, with only a brief glimpse of Malcolm's soldiers hiding behind branches. Abbey presented well the personal consequences of Macbeth's actions, and Wood's conception worked to a degree, but this was the Scottish play, potentially fierce and terrifying, and the audience was deprived of eerie spectacle and a chilling descent into hell. …

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.472
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.240
Teacher spread0.228 · 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.

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
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueShakespeare bulletinSame topicIrish and British StudiesFrench-language works237,207