O’Neill’s Unconscious Shakespearean Orientation: The Comparative Study of The Emperor Jones and Macbeth
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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 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 | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.020 | 0.026 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.000 |
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.
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".