MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2557869534

Heywood, Shakespeare and the Mystery of Troye

2016· article· en· W2557869534 on OpenAlexaff
Douglas Arrell

Bibliographic record

VenueEarly modern literary studies · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicShakespeare, Adaptation, and Literary Criticism
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Winnipeg
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLiteratureMythologyPoetryArgument (complex analysis)ArtMiddle AgesClassicsHistoryAncient historyMedicine
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In a recent article, ‘Heywood, Henslowe and Hercules: Tracking 1 and 2 Hercules in Heywood's Silver and Brazen Ages ’ ( EMLS , 17.1, 2014), I argued that the two Hercules plays performed by the Admiral's Men in 1595-96 were by Heywood and were adapted by him into the Silver and Brazen Ages . If this argument is valid, it makes it very likely that Heywood also wrote the Troye mentioned in Henslowe's Diary as performed in 1596 and that he later adapted it into 1 and 2 The Iron Age . In the medieval version of Greek mythology, the Trojan War follows closely on the Hercules story. Heywood’s long poem Troia Britanica can be used as a guide to determining the material added to Troye to create the Iron Age plays.  There are many signs that the parts of the Iron Age plays that I propose approximate the original Troye were written in the mid-1590s. The most notable of these is the fact that they influenced Shakespeare’s Troilus and Cressida , written c. 1601. While contemporary scholars have suggested that Heywood was influenced by Shakespeare in writing 1 The Iron Age , I present reasons for believing that the influence went the other way. Recognizing that Shakespeare got much of his Homer from Heywood adds to the doubts expressed by some scholars that Shakespeare used The Iliad as a source.

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 score0.022
Threshold uncertainty score0.044

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0150.036
Scholarly communication0.0080.011
Open science0.0010.004
Research integrity0.0030.006
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.001

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 head0.046
GPT teacher head0.240
Teacher spread0.195 · 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

Citations4
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEarly modern literary studiesSame topicShakespeare, Adaptation, and Literary CriticismFrench-language works237,207