MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2048530422 · doi:10.5380/rel.v82i0.17645

Dizer a verdade no teatro moderno: Ricardo III, Hamlet e Rei Lear

2010· article· pt· W2048530422 on OpenAlexaff
Sandra Mara Stroparo

Bibliographic record

VenueRevista Letras · 2010
Typearticle
Languagept
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicFoucault, Power, and Ethics
Canadian institutionsMinistère de l’Emploi et de la Solidarité Sociale (Québec)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanitiesHAMLET (protein complex)PhilosophyArtLiterature

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Seguindo o que foi proposto por Michel Foucault em seu curso “Le gouvernement de soi et des autres”, esse trabalho faz uma leitura de três peças de Shakespeare que permitem uma discussão sobre "formas de governabilidade" e veridicção, ideias trabalhadas em torno do conceito de "parresia" pelo pensador francês. Num trânsito interessante entre a história e a literatura, o discurso literário encena o jogo político e seus problemas: em Ricardo III temos um rei usurpador: se são as mentiras que o levam ao poder, são também elas que o irão destituir dele. Hamlet precisa fazer alguma coisa para vingar a morte do pai mas vai ver seus esforços baldados: ninguém quer ouvir a verdade e a sua teatral loucura acaba por chamar mais a atenção do que as verdades que insiste em repetir. Em Rei Lear refina-se ainda mais o aparecimento do discurso da verdade e sua relação com o poder: de suas três filhas, apenas Cordélia dirá a verdade abertamente a seu pai. Podemos chegar a conclusões interessantes sobre a negação de uma única verdade absoluta e a opção pela ambigüidade como complexidade buscada pela literatura moderna, ou, ousando ainda mais, concluir que a governabilidade moderna depende da relativização da verdade, como queria Maquiavel.

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: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.027
Threshold uncertainty score0.054

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0060.016
Scholarly communication0.0070.006
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0030.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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 head0.030
GPT teacher head0.329
Teacher spread0.300 · 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

Citations0
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRevista LetrasSame topicFoucault, Power, and EthicsFrench-language works237,207