MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1959905580

O’Neill’s Unconscious Shakespearean Orientation: The Comparative Study of The Emperor Jones and Macbeth

2011· article· en· W1959905580 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Xiao-Juan Yao

Bibliographic record

VenueStudies in literature and language · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicTheatre and Performance Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEmperorLustMaterialismUnconscious mindDramaturgyLiteratureOrder (exchange)ApolloCharacter (mathematics)PhilosophyPower (physics)ArtHistoryEpistemologyAncient history
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Based on the formers’ research, the paper mainly lays stress on a systematic new comparison between The Emperor Jones and Macbeth from much wider and specific aspects in order to unearth William Shakespeare’s influence on Eugene O’Neill, especially Macbeth on The Emperor Jones. In Macbeth and The Emperor Jones, both Macbeth’s hunger for power and Jones’ lust for materialistic grab result in their destruction. Besides, they are mercilessly mocked by fate, and become the victim of the then society. Thematically speaking, both Macbeth’s and Jones’ tragedies actually are not one-dimensional but three-dimensional, and can be interpreted as the combination of personality, fate and society. In both plays, Shakespeare and O’Neill adopt aural effect to create the frightful atmosphere and externalize the internal fear of our heroes. And both plays resort to similar symbols such as blackness or darkness, the royal robe and sea to depict the characters. Besides, through soliloquies, both plays tend to reveal the character’s conscious thought and unconscious emotions. Therefore, it can be proved that when Eugene O’Neill chooses the themes and special dramaturgy for The Emperor Jones, he unconsciously adopts much from Macbeth. Key words: The Emperor Jones; Macbeth; Dramatic themes; Dramatic devices

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 categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.042
Threshold uncertainty score0.709

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 communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.062
GPT teacher head0.307
Teacher spread0.244 · 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 designQualitative
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

Citations1
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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