The. Women. The Subject(s) of The Unnatural and Accidental Women and Unnatural and Accidental
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article has a methodological framework that uses post structural theories of the archive as well as performance theory to compare Marie Clements’s play The Unnatural and Accidental Women with Carl Bessai’s celluloid adaptation Unnatural and Accidental . The article opens with a claim that Clements’s play incites a radical recognition of the Other through a Derridan politics of hauntology. The article then suggests that while Clements’s play leads the audience in a performative and ethical recognition of the Other, the celluloid adaptation destabilizes the radical politics of the play. The article closes with a consideration of what is lost in Bessai’s adaptation that cuts from its title the very subjects of Clements’s play: the women. Resume Cet article propose un cadre methodologique qui s’appuie sur des theories poststructurelles de l’archive de meme que sur la theorie du jeu, lesquelles sont appliquees a la piece The Unnatural and Accidental Women de Marie Clements et a l’adaptation cinematographique Unnatural and Accidental de Carl Bessai. L’auteure avance d’abord que la piece de Clements incite a une reconnaissance radicale de l’Autre par une politique derridienne de la «.hantologie.». Il poursuit en faisant valoir que, si la piece de Clements mene son public vers une reconnaissance performative et ethique de l’Autre, l’adaptation cinematographique destabilise la politique radicale mise de l’avant dans la piece. L’article conclut par un examen de ce qui est perdu dans l’adaptation de Bessai, qui retranche de son titre le sujet meme de la piece de Clements: les femmes.
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 | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.032 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".