A Centenary of Missed Opportunities: A Guide to Assembling an Accurate Volume of Samuel Beckett's Dramatic “Shorts”
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Despite the costly efforts and best intentions of both English-language publishers of Samuel Beckett's work and the labours of textual scholars during and just after Beckett's centenary year, Beckett's texts have improved only incrementally and inconsistently in these new centenary and post-centenary editions. This article traces some of the editions of Beckett's work generated by the centenary celebrations, the promises made for them, and the incomplete fulfilment of those promises. In particular, the article traces some of the issues surrounding the Faber editions of 2009–10, especially the author's volume of Krapp's Last Tape and other Short Plays, and appends to this critique the introduction or “Preface” as written before in-house editors at Faber truncated it. In the centenary and post-centenary years, not only have major publishing opportunities been lost, but current efforts may have retarded future corrections. It may be some time before other such efforts to correct Beckett's texts in uniform editions are launched.
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 | 0.004 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.042 | 0.034 |
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".