MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2082930773 · doi:10.12745/et.10.1.745

Mary Frith at the Fortune

2007· article· en· W2082930773 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Mark Hutchings

Bibliographic record

VenueEarly Theatre · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicIrish and British Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFrithRepresentation (politics)AestheticsHistoryPoliticsSociologyArtLawPhilosophyLinguisticsPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Much ink has been spilt on the significance of the representation of gender and gender politics in The Roaring Girl (1611), Middleton and Dekker’s play about Mary Frith, a figure well known to playgoers at the Fortune playhouse and beyond. Yet scholars have paid surprisingly little attention to the evidence that Frith herself attended, and participated in, the Prince Henry’s Men play. Whatever the nature of this ‘role’ (if it was such), arguably it is central to the issues critics have aired, and raises important questions about the play’s reception in 1611. This essay examines the surviving evidence of this tantalisingly suggestive episode, speculates about its precise circumstances, and explores its implications for our understanding of The Roaring Girl in performance. It will be proposed that whatever textual strategies the playwrights used in the quarto published in 1611 to account for Frith’s appearance, Frith was unlikely to have been a wholly comfortable collaborator. Indeed, to those well-documented accounts of Frith’s rejection of authority may be added this intervention at the Fortune, which represents a specific act of resistance to the playhouse’s attempt to contain and redefine her. Thus it is Mary Frith, rather than the actor playing ‘Moll Cutpurse’, who, in taking to the stage, plays out current critical concerns.

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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.161
Threshold uncertainty score0.320

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0170.009
Scholarly communication0.0050.002
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0010.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0190.003

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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.277
Teacher spread0.264 · 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 designNot applicable
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

Citations6
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEarly TheatreSame topicIrish and British StudiesFrench-language works237,207