Bibliographic record
Abstract
The theatricality of the psychotherapeutic encounter has been evident since its origins: Freud complained in 1914 that the patient in the grip of transference-love “gives up her symptoms or pays no attention to them; indeed, she declares that she is well. There is a complete change of scene; it is as though some piece of make-believe had been stopped by the sudden irruption of reality – as when, for instance, a cry of fire is raised during a theatrical performance” (“Observations on Transference-Love”). In the century that followed Freud's observation, the theatre has shown a reciprocal interest in the dramatic possibilities of psychotherapy – the imbalances of power, incomplete access to knowledge and history, and confessional styles of narrative revelation. This theatrical interest in the dynamics of therapy is particularly striking in that it inevitably becomes self-reflexive, an examination of the negotiation of power, knowledge, and autonomy between therapist and patient, analyst and analysand, that ultimately uncovers anxieties about the spectator–actor relationship. In this article, three works from the millennial moment in the United Kingdom and Ireland – Sarah Kane's 4.48 Psychosis, Joe Penhall's Blue/Orange, and Conor McPherson's Shining City – reveal a shifting conception of how psychotherapy works as a theatrical and a metatheatrical device. Kane and Penhall's plays are produced in a historical context in Britain that is equally sceptical about the institutions of psychiatry and the idealism of anti-psychiatry, and McPherson's characters inhabit an Ireland caught in the ambiguous space between the sanitized, globalized conventions of weekly psychotherapy and the ghostly consolations and convictions of spirituality. All three plays suggest that psychotherapy in drama can function metaphorically and metatheatrically by leading us to examine how performances of identity, narrative-making, and interpretation play out both in the theatre and in life.
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 | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.032 | 0.023 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.009 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.002 |
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".