MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

A Mad Art, My Masters:

2015· article· en· W1770144306 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Louise Geddes

Bibliographic record

VenueInterdisciplinary Literary Studies · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicShakespeare, Adaptation, and Literary Criticism
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComplicityAestheticsAppropriationDramaSociologyLiteratureHistoryArtLawPolitical sciencePhilosophyEpistemology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Recently, critics have approached the cultural appropriation of “not-Shakespearean texts, arguing that the Jacobean revivals of the 1980s and 1990s “are as conservative as their Shakespearean counterparts” (Aebischer 282), due to their emphasis on historical continuity and coherence. However, the drama produced in the 1970s and 1980s asserted a new theatrical aesthetic that demands that the audience recognize its own complicity in perpetuating the myth of historical continuum through the stylistic assertion of disunity. Instead of employing a ‘usable history,’ the playwrights of this era created a ‘usable culture’ that used literature as historicity in order to highlight the inefficiency of both as a means of mediating the present. Barrie Keeffe's play, A Mad World My Masters, under the guise of Jacobean nostalgia, confronts the implications of the emergent Conservative cultural dictate that assumes governmental responsibility for defining and maintaining “the good standards and best things” (Thatcher) of postwar England—a missive that repeatedly conflated the form of outrage with the “good” art that should contain such protest. Keeffe challenges the audience's cultural expectations by putting the worst of Thatcher's “scroungers” onstage and demands that the audience recognized its complicity in the emergent fraudulent meritocracy that characterized political reform.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.621
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.002
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.138
GPT teacher head0.337
Teacher spread0.200 · 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
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInterdisciplinary Literary StudiesSame topicShakespeare, Adaptation, and Literary CriticismFrench-language works237,207