Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract This essay won the 2007 Literature Compass Graduate Essay Prize, Renaissance Section, co‐sponsored by the Society for Renaissance Studies. This article considers formulations of performance in printed playtexts of the English Renaissance. Before professional theatres are established, printed plays such as Gorboduc (1565) tend to resort to fragmentary narrative descriptions in order to communicate performance practice to readers. The rise of professional theatres contributes to the modification of printed drama, as writers, printers and readers slowly work out a system for encoding the relevant narrative and theatrical information in abbreviated forms (lists of dramatis personae , speech prefixes, stage directions, scene locations); accordingly, early printed editions of Tamburlaine (1590), The White Devil (1612) and Sejanus (1605 and 1616) are examined, with particular attention paid to para‐texts such as title‐pages, dedications, printers’ prefaces and letters to readers. This ancillary material, usually rooted in the laudatory language of advertisement, encourages particular reading and imaginative strategies through its constructions of a play's performance history and theatre audiences. This article contends that early modern formulations of page and stage are more dynamic, more synergistic, than a binary that opposes ‘literary’ and ‘theatrical’ logic will support.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.013 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.017 | 0.001 |
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".