Bibliographic record
Abstract
The thesis explores Shakespeare’s use of equivocation in Macbeth from three aspects: ⅰ: The equivocation about prophecies; ⅱ: The equivocation about characters, scenes, and ideas; iii: The equivocation about relationship between the world of reality and that of illusion. It holds that equivocation, beginning with the Weird Sisters in the very first scene to the final downfall of Macbeth, is threaded throughout the fabric of the play, thus it is the most important theme in the play. And the use of equivocation also gives us added appreciation of Shakespeare’s supreme skills as a playwright. Key words: Shakespeare, Macbeth, equivocation Resume: La these explore l’utilisation de l’equivocation par Shakespeare dans Macbeth dans les trois perspectives suivantes : 1. L’equivocation sur les propheties ; 2. L’equivocation sur les caracteres, les scenes et les idees ; 3. L’equivocation sur la relation entre le monde reel et le monde d’illusion. Selon cet essai, l’equivocation, commencee par les Weird Sisters dans la premiere scene jusqu’au declin final de Macbeth, est enchainee a travers l’organisation de la piece, donc elle est le plus important theme dans cette piece. D’ailleurs, l’utilisation de l’equivocation aide a augmenter notre appreciation pour la technique supreme de Shakespeare comme dramaturge. Mots-Cles: Shakespeare, Macbeth, equivocation
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 | 0.002 | 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 | 0.010 | 0.024 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 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".