Leaving the Labyrinth: Hella S. Haasse's <i>A Thread in the Dark (De Draad in het donker)</i>
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The history of modem drama offers many examples of plays based on mythic narratives, but, as a strategy, the re-visioning of myth has had particular importance within contemporary women's playwriting. In Britain, Caryl Churchill, Maureen Duffy, Sarah Daniels, and Timberlake Wertenbaker have all taken classical mythology as a stimulus for new writing. In France and Italy, the work of Helene Cixous and Franca Rame provides further examples. When the diversity of this theatrical practice is considered even briefly, it becomes clear that the range of work, firstly, is far more complex than a simple identification of feminist "heroines," and, secondly, does not signify an escapist retreat into fantasy from the "real world." As Rita Felski has observed in relation to feminist literature, "[al celebration of subjectivity, spirituality, and myth does not necessarily imply a lack of commitment to social and political change." The playwrights I mention here, and the re-visionings of myth they offer, have received considerable critical attention in terms both of their approaches to specific narratives and of their relationship to a wider feminist project. In this essay, however, I wish to consider a somewhat earlier example, and one that is likely to be unfamiliar to the majority of readers.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.012 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.017 | 0.004 |
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".