Brian Friel and the Scene of Writing: Reading <i>Give Me Your Answer, Do!</i>
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Brian Friel's thoroughgoing concern with the nature of language has been attributed to several factors: his need to investigate the means of his own art; his political and cultural investment in a language inextricably bound up with Ireland's colonial history; and the impact on his work of Martin Heidegger's and George Steiner's views on language. In Friel's oeuvre, language is the field where all the practices that constitute the social totality and the self take place, so that narratives and discourses about ourselves and the world are constituted by language. Within this context of Heideggerian linguistic epistemology, Friel focuses on a language that is inventive, unstable, and speculative in its relation to reality, a sense of language as a slippery, ambiguous, and polysemous signifying system fully investigated in another of Friel's principal sources, George Steiner's After Babel (1975). Written language specifically is always defined by virtue of its untrustworthiness in conveying the reality to which it refers, a situation that has led to the conclusion that in Friel's work, "[w]riting and failure go hand in hand". The scripting of reality leaves a lot to be desired, since each act of writing leaves something that escapes writing. The "same" event is approached from different perspectives, constructing various contradictory, provisional, or interested narratives, a theme illustrated in several of Friel's plays, including Living Quarters (1977), The Aristocrats (1979), and Making History (1988).
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".