MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2022499552 · doi:10.3138/md.0577

Parody, E.E. Cummings, and <i>Uncle Tom’s Cabin</i>

2014· article· en· W2022499552 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
James M. Cherry

Bibliographic record

VenueModern Drama · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicTheater, Performance, and Music History
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBalletDramaNarrativeDanceArtPoetryPower (physics)LiteraturePerformance artArt historyHistory

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ABSTRACT: This article examines E.E. Cummings’s Tom (1935), a modern dance treatment of Harriet Beecher Stowe’s Uncle Tom’s Cabin never produced, and the effect that Tom has had on subsequent stage interpretations of Uncle Tom’s Cabin. Grounded in Linda Hutcheon’s conception of parody as an “ironic playing with multiple conventions,” the article argues that Cummings’s Tom blends Stowe’s narrative with modernist poetry, ballet, and African-American religious symbolism as a way to reactivate the potency of Uncle Tom’s Cabin in the twentieth century and suggests that productions like Bill T. Jones’s Last Supper at Uncle Tom’s Cabin / The Promised Land (1991), and the Drama Dept.’s Uncle Tom’s Cabin; Or, The Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life (1997) followed the pattern of Cummings’s Tom, by using parody and ironic juxtaposition to generate vital, new interpretations of the old story. These performances all suggest that melodrama regains its power to move audiences when presented as a part a collective memory and an intertextual, parodic narrative. The strategies of Cummings, Jones, and the Drama Dept. reveal a modern potential in the intermixture of parody and melodrama.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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 score0.019
Threshold uncertainty score0.037

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0080.006
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0000.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.001

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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.183
Teacher spread0.170 · 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

Citations0
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueModern DramaSame topicTheater, Performance, and Music HistoryFrench-language works237,207