MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2100631334

Illusion and Reality in Edward Albee's The Zoo Story

2015· article· en· W2100631334 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Hossein Aliakbari Harehdasht, Leila Hajjari, Zahra Sheikhi Shahidzadeh

Bibliographic record

VenueStudies in literature and language · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicCultural Studies and Interdisciplinary Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAlienationAction (physics)Order (exchange)IllusionValue (mathematics)AestheticsPsychoanalysisSociologyContemplationPhilosophyEpistemologyPsychologyLawComputer sciencePolitical science
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Edward Albee’s The Zoo Story is about the interaction between its two main characters Peter and Jerry dramatizing the former’s disillusionment in the hands of the latter; Jerry’s speech and action aim at shattering Peter’s obsession with material things, his easy justification for stability, and his reluctance to understand the alienation at the core of his life. Jerry’s success in changing Peter comes at the cost of his life; however, there are interesting techniques deployed by him in order to convert Peter from an incommunicative person to someone who finally understands the value of human connection. Concentration on the conflicts between the two characters, detecting the causes of their alienation, and finally analyzing the techniques that Jerry employs to convert Peter, are the main issues discussed in this study with the hope to enlighten the hidden corners and revealing the implied meanings of a play which is quite rich in its symbolic suggestiveness.

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)0.003
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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.041
Threshold uncertainty score0.081

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0100.026
Scholarly communication0.0060.005
Open science0.0010.004
Research integrity0.0020.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.098
GPT teacher head0.367
Teacher spread0.270 · 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

Citations3
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueStudies in literature and languageSame topicCultural Studies and Interdisciplinary ResearchFrench-language works237,207