MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1882203646 · doi:10.7592/ejhr2014.2.2.sehmby

“Jerome at the BBC”: Subversion, caricature, and humanity in Three Men in a Boat

2014· article· en· W1882203646 on OpenAlexaff
Dalbir S. Sehmby

Bibliographic record

VenueEuropean Journal of Humour Research · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicShakespeare, Adaptation, and Literary Criticism
Canadian institutionsUniversity of AlbertaRoyal Military College Saint-Jean
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHollywoodHumanitySubversionMasculinityAgency (philosophy)HEROArtPsychicLiteraturePsychoanalysisSociologyHistoryArt historyAestheticsGender studiesPsychologyPhilosophyTheologyLawPoliticsMedicinePolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Through characters who openly express distress over imagined pains, "Jerome at the BBC" treats BBC's Three Men in a Boat as a playful critique of heroic masculinity, or what the paper defines as confident cognisant agency. Airing in 1975, BBC's adaptation is released after the media ascension of James Bond and in the heyday of tough Hollywood heroes, bold figures who refuse to complain about, let alone give in, to physical pain -unlike Jerome's men. Jerome's original and its BBC adaptation are layered comical texts. By channelling Jerome's critique of the colonial, seafaring male into contemporary notions of the Hollywood-hero type, this paper examines the BBC film's boisterous lack of masculine agency, the quiet parody of action sequences, and the gingerly movement towards a conclusion that does not bang, but whimpers. Moreover, the paper asserts that the humour also functions on a less grand level, by being an effective caricature of human behavioura healthy dose of cultural self-mockery. Furthermore, through revealing moments, by the telefilm's end, the characters do not simply remain caricatures to be laughed at, but become identifiable and relatable human beings.

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)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.497
Threshold uncertainty score0.766

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.096
GPT teacher head0.298
Teacher spread0.202 · 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.

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

Citations0
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEuropean Journal of Humour ResearchSame topicShakespeare, Adaptation, and Literary CriticismFrench-language works237,207