Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article challenges an assumption that, implicitly and explicitly, has long structured the interpretive history of Krapp's Last Tape—namely, that Beckett's play presents the bitter consequences of a failed sacrifice. In order to make that assumption plausible, critics have had to posit a certain causal relationship between the scenes recounted on the tape made by Krapp at age thirty-nine. However, careful analysis suggests that this voluntaristic narrative of artistic ambition leading to sexual renunciation needs to be questioned. By attending to the pervasive Oedipal thematics of the play, this article contends that the apparent sacrifice (or “farewell to love”) by Krapp is actually better understood as the result of a more fundamental inhibition. Even though in Anti-Oedipus Gilles Deleuze and Félix Guattari use Beckett's work (particularly the prose) to illustrate the purposeless productivity of the schizoid, much of the dramatic power of Krapp's Last Tape seems to result from the staging of precisely the sort of Oedipal scenario that is undone or exploded elsewhere in Beckett.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.020 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".