TONY HOWARD. Women as Hamlet: Performance and Interpretation in Theatre, Film and Fiction.
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.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.011 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.015 | 0.003 |
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".