Book Review: Laurie E. Maguire. <em>Studying Shakespeare: A Guide to the Plays</em>. Oxford: Blackwell, 2004.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Significant categories of dramatic improvisation necessarily elude the approaches of one section of a single volume.One such, that incidentally undermines Klausner's sweeping claim that 'planned improvisation was not influenced in any way by the Italian commedia tradition' (283), is extended virtuoso solos of the type of Launce's entry scene in Two Gentlemen of Verona, 2.3.Also missing are two welcome components of multi-author interdisciplinary books: a bibliography, and brief details on individual contributors.However, the admirably comprehensive index guides readers through a volume in which every section illuminates aspects of improvisation's mediation between artistic creation and live performance.Of interest to scholars of theatre as a whole, as well as for its introduction and drama contributions, it unites distinguished scholars at the forefront of several disciplines in emphasising that, in the period before 1700, improvisation and orality underpinned a multiplicity of performance spheres.Their timely insights earn it shelf-space in every serious library of early theatre.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.014 | 0.002 |
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".