Peter Holland and Stephen Orgel (eds), From Script to Stage in Early Modern England. Pp. xiii + 251 (Redefining British Theatre History). Basingstoke, London, New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2004). Paperbound £17.99 (ISBN 1 4039 3343 X).
Bibliographic record
Abstract
FROM SCRIPT TO STAGE IN EARLY MODERN ENGLAND is one of a series of five volumes that aims to question some of the fundamental assumptions that have shaped theatre history. It brings together eleven essays by specialists in early modern theatre, addressing a broad area of issues related to the physical aspects of playhouses and playing (architecture, staging, and performance), interrogating standard definitions of what texts are and how they generate meaning, and looking anew at the involvement of women. The most significant purpose of the volume is to shift emphasis away from the essentially literary process that attempts to establish the dramatic author's original manuscript, which, even though it is effectively impossible, is what most modern editions set out to do. Attention is directed instead to the collaborative labour and the material activities involved in making plays, to what Andrew Gurr, in his contribution ‘A New Theatre Historicism’, calls the ‘interaction between the plays within specific company repertories and the company's performative practices’, rather than ‘the study of authors and their versions of the texts in print’ (72). Although this different emphasis is not new, it has been given urgency by new archival materials, especially those brought to light by the Records of Early English Drama (REED) project located at the University of Toronto.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.048 | 0.013 |
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".