MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2486850159 · doi:10.1017/cbo9781316091722.080

John Jones, <i>Adrasta</i> (1635)

2016· book-chapter· en· W2486850159 on OpenAlexaff
William E. Engel, Rory Loughnane, Grant Williams

Bibliographic record

VenueCambridge University Press eBooks · 2016
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicLiterature: history, themes, analysis
Canadian institutionsCarleton University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAmateurArtPerformance artKnightLiteratureHistoryLawArt historyPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

About the author John Jones ( fl . 1635) was an amateur dramatist, about whom little is known. Adrasta is the only piece of writing attributed to him. The play's title page states that it was ‘Never Acted’, and Jones's epistolary dedication to the play reveals why. Encouraged by the positive reception of readings of the play by his friends, Jones submitted it to the ‘players’ to be considered for performance. Unfortunately for Jones, the company ‘upon a sight and half view of it, refused to do it that right’. Jones complains that ‘The reason I well know not, unless perhaps it had not in it so much witchcraft in poetry, as, now ‘tis known, the stage will bear.’ He says that by the ‘earnest impulse of some particular friends’ with ‘necessity concurring’, and his own desire to work no further on it, he ‘was unwillingly forced to publish it to the world’. Jones complains that doubtless ‘a dog-toothed cynic will have a snap at it ’ now that it is published, but it is not worth his anger to respond. About the text The play proper is prefaced by an induction scene and prologue. An actor, playing the role of ‘a stranger’, demands to know from the Prologue (the actor speaking the prologue) what genre of play will be performed. Dissatisfied by the Prologue's answer – a satire – the stranger makes several specific demands about what play he thinks the audience ‘desires’. The Prologue suggests that the stranger should speak to the author. The stranger agrees and exits the stage (to the tiring-house) to pass on his advice about how to emend the plot. The play that follows, a tragi-comedy set in Florence about the trials of faithful love sourced from Boccaccio's Decameron , is presumably this ‘revised’ version. The arts of memory Our excerpt is taken from the opening dialogue of the opening scene of the play proper. It is a comic exchange between a gentleman, Antonio, and a page, Rigazzo, who was previously a student. Similar to the excerpt from Webster's Induction Scene to The Malcontent (VI.13), here we see another example of training in the memory arts put to ill use. This excerpt presents a striking example of how the memory arts were a familiar, if not necessarily well-understood, intellectual practice in Renaissance England.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.049
Threshold uncertainty score0.162

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0050.002
Scholarly communication0.0040.004
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0490.015

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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.167
Teacher spread0.147 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCambridge University Press eBooksSame topicLiterature: history, themes, analysisFrench-language works237,207