Bibliographic record
Abstract
In the summer of 2006, Canadian director Peter Hinton mounted Webster's <i>The Duchess of Malfi</i> at the Stratford Shakespeare Festival. During the Duchess's death scene spectators routinely walked out; it was rough, long, brutal, upsetting to watch, weirdly real. I saw Hinton's production live twice in the summer of 2006, and again on archive video in 2008. Every time the Duchess died I got the distinct impression that I was seeing something I was not really supposed to see, seeing what is not supposed to happen on a stage-and certainly not on a stage at the Stratford Shakespeare Festival, a large, not-for-profit organization that bills itself as North America's leading classical repertory company and the largest festival of its kind in the world. In this paper I am interested in what it means that such a moment as the Duchess' death can appear on a stage as notoriously conservative as Stratford's, and why a director as well known for challenging, boundary-breaking, "intellectual" theatre as Peter Hinton should work at the Festival and be so very welcomed when he does. More specifically, I am interested in why scholars, critics, and some audience members have often claimed that this place is unwilling and unable to take risks-to risk political productions; to risk more non-traditional casting; to risk performing Shakespeare and his contemporaries in non-traditional modes-and what these claims imply about the complex valences of the term "risk" at Stratford and in reviews and scholarship about Stratford performances.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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 teacher head, 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".