MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2337708200 · doi:10.1177/0184767816643271

‘My Shakespeare, rise’

2016· article· en· W2337708200 on OpenAlexaff
John Baxter

Bibliographic record

VenueCahiers Élisabéthains A Journal of English Renaissance Studies · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicShakespeare, Adaptation, and Literary Criticism
Canadian institutionsDalhousie University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPraiseFolioTragedy (event)LiteratureSubject (documents)CriticismHumanismPhilosophyPoetryArtTheology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Ben Jonson played a seminal role in establishing the contours of Shakespeare criticism, but discussion of his relationship to his great contemporary is fraught with difficulty. His dedicatory poem to the Shakespeare First Folio (1623) is filled with praise, elevating its subject to mythic status. But his comments on Shakespeare in Discoveries are more acerbic, and they raise questions about exactly where Jonson’s sympathies lie and what they mean. This essay explores the way his principles and his sympathies are grounded in the Aristotelian theory of tragedy that Jonson got from the Dutch humanist Daniel Heinsius.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.675
Threshold uncertainty score0.871

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.045
GPT teacher head0.268
Teacher spread0.223 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations2
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCahiers Élisabéthains A Journal of English Renaissance StudiesSame topicShakespeare, Adaptation, and Literary CriticismFrench-language works237,207