MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1995207352 · doi:10.1353/utq.2010.0242

'A local habitation and a name': Britten Adapts Shakespeare

2010· article· en· W1995207352 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Katherine R. Larson, Lawrence Wiliford

Bibliographic record

VenueUniversity of Toronto Quarterly · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicShakespeare, Adaptation, and Literary Criticism
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHistoryLiteratureArt

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Benjamin Britten was acutely sensitive to the significance of place in his operas - a feature that lies at the heart of his adaptation of Shakespeare's A Midsummer Night's Dream . This essay argues that the revision choices preserved in the libretto, coupled with Britten's musical setting, reveal a determination to blur the boundaries between forest and Athens to an even greater degree than Shakespeare does. Unlike Shakespeare, Britten situates the bulk of the opera's action in the woods, foregrounding the play's dreamlike qualities while also drawing attention to the composer's fascination with the threshold between dreams and reality. In examining the impact that the 'local conditions' of the woods have on Britten's interpretation of A Midsummer Night's Dream , this essay focuses in particular on the transformation of Shakespeare's 'rude mechanicals' into Britten's 'rustics.' Bottom and his fellow actors, who together bridge the gap between the human and the supernatural, exemplify the extent to which the textual changes and the rich soundscapes of Britten's opera reframe the characters and realms of Shakespeare's famous comedy.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.076
Threshold uncertainty score0.151

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0140.028
Scholarly communication0.0070.003
Open science0.0010.004
Research integrity0.0020.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.010
GPT teacher head0.184
Teacher spread0.175 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
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

Citations2
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueUniversity of Toronto QuarterlySame topicShakespeare, Adaptation, and Literary CriticismFrench-language works237,207