MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1496044645 · doi:10.3138/tric.31.2.143

Romance, Recognition and Revenge in Marie Clements’s <i>The Unnatural and Accidental Women</i>

2010· article· en· W1496044645 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Karen Bamford

Bibliographic record

VenueTheatre Research in Canada · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicFolklore, Mythology, and Literature Studies
Canadian institutionsMount Allison University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRomanceTragedy (event)NarrativeLiteratureDramaAccidentalEconomic JusticePlot (graphics)PhilosophyHistoryArtLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This essay considers the relationship of Marie Clements’s The Unnatural and Accidental Women to European traditions of drama and folk narrative, and especially its relation to the genres of revenge tragedy and romance. It argues that Clements transforms and subsumes the latter in a feminist, maternal romance. In contrast to the traditional family romance, from Homer’s Odyssey to Shakespeare’s Pericles, and its folktale analogues (Cinderella and Peau d’Asne, and the related Dear as Salt), which operate to gratify paternal wishes, Clements’s romance gratifies a mother’s desire for reunion and reconciliation with her daughter. In contrast to the resolution of Renaissance revenge plots, in which the revenger typically dies to satisfy the claims of justice, here the female protagonist achieves a rebirth symbolized by the recognition she shares with her mother. Like the romance tradition which it transforms, the play offers us a vision of an ideal world, here symbolized in “the first supper” that concludes the play.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.413
Threshold uncertainty score0.821

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0340.040
Scholarly communication0.0090.003
Open science0.0010.005
Research integrity0.0030.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.042
GPT teacher head0.281
Teacher spread0.239 · 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
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

Citations8
Published2010
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTheatre Research in CanadaSame topicFolklore, Mythology, and Literature StudiesFrench-language works237,207