Bibliographic record
Abstract
Notbeing a student ofShakespeare, I approachedthis monumental work ofliterary criticism with considerable diffidence.What is a psychiatrist doing reviewing an analysis of Shakespeare's work?The best answer is found in the subtitle of the book: Bloom's thesis is that "Shakespeare will go on explaining us, in part because he invented us."Bloom argues that no author rivals Shakespeare in the creation ofpersonality, that Shakespeare went beyond all precedents and "invented the human as we continue to know it."According to Bloom, Shakespeare not only invented the English language but also created the concept of human nature as we know it today-before Shakespeare there was "characterization," and after, there were "characters," men and women capable of change, with highly individual personalities.It is impossible for me to assess Bloom's claim that no Western writer is equal to Shakespeare as an intellect: as a psychiatrist, I feel entitled to review this book only from a mainly psychiatric point of view.The dust jacket refers to Bloom as the "preeminent literary critic of our time."This may well be the case, but in the many comments in this book that pertain to psychiatry, he appears to wander out of his field of expertise.Bloom's first reference to Freud is to suggest that Shakespeare, "rather than his involuntary follower Freud, is our psychologist"-an unnecessarily provocative statement that is neither supported nor
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 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.032 | 0.012 |
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".