MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2531213818 · doi:10.3968/8590

The New Historicist Reading of Arthur Miller’s The Crucible

2016· article· en· W2531213818 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Fatemeh Mojdegani

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian social science · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicCultural Studies and Interdisciplinary Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHistoricismNew HistoricismTextualitySubversionCrucible (geodemography)MillerInterpretation (philosophy)LiteratureReading (process)PoliticsPower (physics)AestheticsSociologyPhilosophyHistoryEpistemologyLawArtPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

New Historicism is a modern literary theory that concentrates on how events, places, and culture within a society affect or influence a written work. New historicism often looks for allusions to characterize of the time period a novel was written. This paper focuses on The Crucible , a dramatic work by American playwright, Arthur Miller. The paper studies how The Crucible is a vital part of America’s historical literature as well as essential to the present day discussion of New Historicism that is greatly influenced by the work of Michael Foucault and his theories about power and discourse and Stephen Greenblatt’s idea of “textuality of history”. Despite the obvious political criticisms contained within the play, most critics felt that  The Crucible was a self contained play about a terrible period in American history. To put New Historicism as a mode of interpretation on this play, studies the complex networks of social discourses besides the concepts of power, subversion and resistance in this special way of reading of the play.

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)0.002
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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.019
Threshold uncertainty score0.040

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0080.021
Scholarly communication0.0060.007
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0020.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.063
GPT teacher head0.287
Teacher spread0.224 · 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
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

Citations1
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian social scienceSame topicCultural Studies and Interdisciplinary ResearchFrench-language works237,207