TONY HOWARD. Women as Hamlet: Performance and Interpretation in Theatre, Film and Fiction.
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The editors’ introduction to the new Arden Hamlet (2006) begins with a recognition of the ‘sheer depth and breadth of tradition’ that ‘weigh heavily on those who tackle Hamlet, whether as actor, director, editor or critic’ (p. 2). Given the volume of critical work on the play (which, according to the Arden editors, is running at over 400 publications a year), it is unusual to find a work as fresh, original and unpretentious as Tony Howard's Women As Hamlet. Conceived, as Howard notes, at least as long ago as 1990 (but only published in 2007), this work has already influenced major studies of Hamlet: it is mentioned, for example, in Margreta de Grazia's ‘Hamlet’ Without Hamlet (Cambridge, 2006), and was consulted in typescript by Thompson and Taylor for the Arden edition. Howard's own claims for his work are modest: acknowledging that he soon realised his subject matter was too extensive for his book to be encyclopaedic, he describes it as a ‘small attempt to cross boundaries’ that might cause ‘some of the shifting meanings of the figure of the female Hamlet [to] emerge through a study of cultural practices’ (p. 12). The resultant monograph (which is interdisciplinary and multicultural in scope, considering representations of Hamlet in art, film, novels, on stage, and in advertisements, and from places as diverse as Japan, Moscow, Canada and Turkey) is a supremely successful achievement that goes far beyond Howard's modest assessment of his aims.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it