MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2025848311 · doi:10.3138/md.44.1.31

Why Modern Plays Are Not Culture: Disciplinary Blind Spots

2001· article· en· W2025848311 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Shannon Jackson

Bibliographic record

VenueModern Drama · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicTheatre and Performance Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDramaLiteratureAntithesisArtTragedy (event)DisciplineAestheticsSociologySocial science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

My title is taken, with significant modification, from the same essay in which Robert Brustein chastised "the drama" for not being interdisciplinary. In that piece, "Why American Plays Are Not Literature," Brustein made clear that something called "literature" was the discipline with which drama most needed contact. Not only was it, in Brustein's view, the only discipline with which the drama needed contact, but its models of value were those to which all drama should aspire. Condemning the fact that American dramatists almost never sought representation in "the literary periodicals," his 1959 use of the term "interdisciplinary" was thus a way of rationalizing a formula for the cultural legitimation of the drama, American and otherwise. My second epigraph is from a drama scholar who was Brustein's contemporary, if also, at some level, his antithesis. Before and between renowned texts such as Culture and Society and Keywords, Raymond Williams published a series of books in the field of drama — Drama from Ibsen to Eliot, Drama in Use, Modem Tragedy, and a revised Drama from Ibsell to Brecht — a "set" that he considered a formative "critical study" of the dramatic form

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)0.008
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.016
Threshold uncertainty score0.039

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0080.041
Scholarly communication0.0160.012
Open science0.0010.004
Research integrity0.0030.006
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 head0.048
GPT teacher head0.258
Teacher spread0.210 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations4
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueModern DramaSame topicTheatre and Performance StudiesFrench-language works237,207