MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1861319988

Power From Pinteresque Discourse in The Birthday Party

2013· article· en· W1861319988 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Y. Connie Yuan

Bibliographic record

VenueStudies in literature and language · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicTheatre and Performance Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPower (physics)HegemonyTheme (computing)PoliticsTerminologyElement (criminal law)LiteraturePeriod (music)Michel foucaultSociologyPhilosophyAestheticsLawPolitical scienceArtLinguistics
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Harold Pinter is widely regarded as one of the most influential representatives of British theatre in the twentieth century. The significance of his tremendous contribution to modern theatre has been summed up in one theatrical terminology, namely, “Pinteresque”. Though Pinter’s plays are characteristic of minimal plots and limited characters, the dialogues are filled with powerful tension. Power, however, is not only an important element, but also a recurrent theme in his plays in many ways. Indubitably, there are power struggles between dominating and dominated characters in his plays. Aligned with the French philosopher Michel Foucault’s theory of discourse and power, this article analyzes one early play by Harold Pinter, The Birthday Party , arguing that the characters in this play possess strong desire for power, which makes them aware of the menace all around. What is more, the reflection of power exhibited in The Birthday Party anticipates Pinter’s radical anti-hegemony politics in his later period.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
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 score0.020
Threshold uncertainty score0.062

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0200.035
Scholarly communication0.0150.007
Open science0.0010.009
Research integrity0.0020.005
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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.281
Teacher spread0.265 · 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

Citations3
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueStudies in literature and languageSame topicTheatre and Performance StudiesFrench-language works237,207