Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paperexamines Mark Jackson’s Salomania, a 2012 stage representation of the1918 libel trial by a Canadian dancer, Maud Allan, against the BritishMember of Parliament, Noel Pemberton Billing. Jackson’s play issignificant not only as an important addition to the documentary trialplays, but also as a further contribution to the dramatic literature aboutthe trials of Oscar Wilde, with which it creates an indirect dialog. Thetheatrical and social background of the trial is considered first, in orderto gain an understanding of the context, the characters, and the issuesinvolved. As with Wilde’s trials, Allan’s attempt to clear her name wasoverturned by allegations of sexual perversity, in the “trial of thecentury,” which revealed mismanagement of the British legal system andthe absurdity of attempts to make art legally accountable. The ensuingcourtroom drama is reconstructed by Jackson by taking selections from contemporary court transcripts. Salomania probes the roots of Victorian,Edwardian, and (by implication) contemporary society, questioning howprejudice, homophobia, and xenophobia can occur in the courtroom of acivilized society. Jackson offers little commentary of his own on theissue, but makes his point by juxtaposing the horrors of trench warfarein World War I with this concurrent travesty of justice on the homefront. In showing Wilde and Allan as sacrificial victims of cultural, legal,and homophobic hysteria, Salomania offers a timeless culturalinvestigation into the relationship between art, law, and society.
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 | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.019 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.014 | 0.002 |
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".