Bibliographic record
Abstract
In the past ten years or so, religion has made significant inroads into our discussions of early modern theater; this ‘religious turn’ 1 has clarified how religious ways of thinking and feeling saturated the whole period. The question prompted by this is how we should define the relations between religion and theater — is, as some have recently claimed, theater infused with religious content, or does it remain a primarily secular domain? If the latter, in what ways does religion nevertheless enter into theatrical discourse? In the heyday of new historicism, with its emphasis on secular power, any affiliations between theater and religious culture fell under the shadow of hermeneutic suspicion, with the result that religion was typically represented as a screen masking the operations of the more serious negotiations of a diffused but highly charged Power. While the recognition that Elizabethan society was permeated with religion is clearly a gain, in that a certain light has replaced a critical blindness, it may be time for a reassessment of the turn that has been taken. If religion is now everywhere in the critical arena, as it also seems to be in the world we inhabit and read about in the newspapers every day, does that entail the possibility of a new short-sightedness? Certainly, the renewed interest in, for example, whether Shakespeare was a Catholic, and the increasingly confident claims made about the sectarian direction of his writing, can have its problems. These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.014 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.026 | 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".