MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2157846686 · doi:10.3138/ecf.27.2.257

Staging Sociability in <i>The Excursion</i>: Frances Brooke, David Garrick, and the King’s Theatre Coterie

2014· article· en· W2157846686 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Katherine G. Charles

Bibliographic record

VenueEighteenth-Century Fiction · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicLiterature: history, themes, analysis
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsExcursionPoliticsContext (archaeology)ArtPlot (graphics)Performance artVisual artsHistoryArt historyLiteratureLawPolitical scienceArchaeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

While previous critics have classified Frances Brooke’s novel The Excursion (1777) as a moral tale aligned with either the sentimental or pastoral tradition, this article makes the case for interpreting The Excursion as a political satire directed against corrupt theatre politics. Reading the plot in the context of contemporary letters, periodicals, and theatrical miscellanies reveals a thick weave of topical allusions to the 1770s London stage and uncovers a buried homage to celebrity actress Mary Ann Yates, Brooke’s friend and business partner. Brooke leverages her novel to promote the interests of her theatrical circle and her own claim to be recognized as one of the great theatre managers of the day—specifically, as the equal to David Garrick. As a satire of theatre politics, The Excursion allows Brooke to map out a specific vision for what constitutes good acting, how the government should reform its theatre policy, and why accessible theatre is especially crucial for women, creative professionals, and audience members alike.

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)0.002
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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.087
Threshold uncertainty score0.172

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0170.029
Scholarly communication0.0080.004
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0020.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.008
GPT teacher head0.191
Teacher spread0.183 · 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

Citations0
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEighteenth-Century FictionSame topicLiterature: history, themes, analysisFrench-language works237,207