Bibliographic record
Abstract
Is there any justification for the prevailing view that female spectators were present in large numbers at the theatres during Shakespeare’s career, and can it be said that they had any significant influence on the representation of women on the stage? One reason to doubt female influence on character representation is the pervasive male didacticism found in the 160 extant texts by his contemporaries, most often expressed through polarised stereotypical models of passive virtue and object lessons in the folly of rebellion, and to which Shakespeare to a large measure subscribes. Critics who suppose a greater measure of sympathy for the female characters, or even an unsympathetic analysis of the ‘structures of patriarchal dominance’, have failed to take adequate account of the collective endeavour of an all-male company, and in particular the nature and consequences of a late adolescent performer, more capable of empathy perhaps than a younger player, but often mockingly satirical, ultimately disengaged from the roles he played and a spokesman for the male point-of-view, employed to celebrate the rich, exciting, often dangerous possibilities of the opposite sex, but also concerned to keep women in their place.
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 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.013 | 0.022 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.013 | 0.002 |
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".