Dramatic Justice?: The Aftermath of the Holocaust in Ronald Harwood's <i>Taking Sides </i>and <i>The Handyman</i>
Bibliographic record
Abstract
There are many obvious parallels between the action that takes place in a courtroom and that which commonly occurs in the theatrical space. The trial is performative: within the courtroom, both the public gallery and the jury provide an audience, while lawyers and judges display a grasp of rhetorical skills designed to assist them in out-performing the witnesses. The end result of the trial is not only the verdict, but a completed narrative, pieced together from witness testimony. In this respect, the lawyer can be paralleled to the playwright, choosing what each individual should reveal at any particular moment and, in the lawyer's case, persuading them to do so. Certainly, playwrights themselves have often realised that as a dramatic device, interrogation, whether it takes place in a courtroom or elsewhere, is an economical means of conveying precisely elicited information to an audience. Not only does the trial format dispense with establishing dialogue and elements of exposition, but the question of whether witnesses are speaking the whole truth provides an undertow of dramatic tension.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.018 | 0.019 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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.
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".