Bibliographic record
Abstract
Since The Mayor of Casterbridge was published in 1886, Michael Henchard has met with variety of critical responses. Thus as early as 1922 Joseph Warren Beach called him the prime mover of his own fate;1 in 1959 John Paterson described him as hero whose defection profound? ly disturbed the morality of universal order;2 in 1960 Frederick Karl ob? served that All of Henchard's acts reveal fatalism, as if he must drive himself until he falls.3 Although no simple explanation can be given for the existence of such disparate views, it can be said that much of the con? fusion results from failure to see The Mayor as Aeschylean tragedy. When the structure of the novel is duly considered, it becomes clear that Michael Henchard's life resembles Agamemnon's more than Oedipus's. Illustrating the tendency to see the novel as Sophoclean rather than Aeschylean tragedy, John Paterson calls attention to the first two chap? ters which he describes as structural peculiarity dramatizing the caus? al relationship between Henchard's crime and punishment. He uses this to suggest ultimately that the novel reveals moral order, a reli? gious sanction. He maintains that the fate which controls the novel re? sembles . . . the ideal wisdom that Hegel found presiding over the tragic drama of Sophocles and Shakespeare.4 What Mr. Paterson says proceeds from the assumption that in typically Sophoclean tragedy it is the past which destroys the hero in the present, whereas in fact the Sophoclean hero?whether Oedipus or Antig? one or Ajax or Deianeira?wreaks his own destruction in the present and the Aeschylean hero is doomed in the present because of what he did in the past.5 There is, then, relationship between the deeds of the Prologue (chapters 1 and 2) and the Mayor's eventual fate but not the causal rela? tionship suggested by Mr. Paterson.6 Instead, the situation is as follows: When Henchard chooses to sell Susan, he performs that deed which seals
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.012 | 0.013 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".