MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2332382103 · doi:10.1386/scene.1.3.331_1

Staging hyperrealism: Tracing the influence of the televisual in Thomas Ostermeier’s Woyzeck

2013· article· en· W2332382103 on OpenAlexaff
Elisha Conway

Bibliographic record

VenueScene · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicArt, Politics, and Modernism
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIconicityScenographySign (mathematics)AestheticsArtObject (grammar)Visual artsPhilosophyLinguistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Building upon Umberto Eco and Jean Baudrillard’s theories of hyperrealism, this article explores hyperrealist theatre through the example of Thomas Ostermeier’s 2004 production of Georg Büchner’s Woyzeck. The article demonstrates that the production’s hyperrealism can be divided into two types: aesthetic hyperrealism and cultural hyperrealism. Aesthetic hyperrealism is the instance of an object appearing as ‘the real thing’, in effect hiding its nature as a sign. The production’s aesthetic hyperrealism is seen in the semiosis of the scenography (i.e. scenography built upon the direct sign). The aesthetic hyperrealism of Ostermeier’s Woyzeck, a feature of the production’s iconicity, is derived from the influence of the televisual iconic sign. Cultural hyperrealism is the cultural desire for things that are more (as in extra or better) than real. Cultural hyperrealism is framed, in Ostermeier’s production, by the social relationships of the fictional world (i.e. sensationalized social interactions that are ‘more’ than real). In Ostermeier’s Woyzeck, cultural hyperrealism is indebted to the influence of TV soap operas.

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)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.029

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0040.018
Scholarly communication0.0080.004
Open science0.0010.006
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.001

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 head0.035
GPT teacher head0.251
Teacher spread0.216 · 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 designQualitative
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
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSceneSame topicArt, Politics, and ModernismFrench-language works237,207