MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2588757074 · doi:10.1111/1475-6757.12071

Recent Studies in Elizabeth Cary (1994‐2014, with additional items from 2015)

2016· article· en· W2588757074 on OpenAlexaff
Christina Luckyj, Rose Sneyd

Bibliographic record

VenueEnglish Literary Renaissance · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicLiterature: history, themes, analysis
Canadian institutionsDalhousie University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Although scholars continue to focus chiefly on Cary's Tragedy of Mariam (1613), they have largely moved beyond the biographical approaches of the 1980s and 1990s to situate the play in relation to early modern discourses of religion, politics, gender, genre, and race, while also considering the play's potential effects in the modern theater and classroom. Mariam criticism is energized by dynamic debates not only about Cary's religio‐political allegiances but also about the meanings generated by the play's complex, multivalent perspectives. While Edward II was printed in different octavo and folio versions in 1680, recent work on the consanguineous manuscripts underlying them may suggest Elizabeth Cary's authorship of both. The folio History of the Life, Reign and Death of Edward II, more easily attributed to Elizabeth Cary, has been approached both as a timely intervention in contemporary politics and as an expression of Cary's own experiences. If there is still work to be done on Cary's writings beyond Mariam–on the manuscripts underlying Edward II, and on her translations, letters, and epitaphs–her original play and her History will doubtless continue to generate new interpretations. [C.L. and R.S.]

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.769
Threshold uncertainty score0.987

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.002
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0140.000

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 head0.032
GPT teacher head0.241
Teacher spread0.210 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

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

Citations2
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEnglish Literary RenaissanceSame topicLiterature: history, themes, analysisFrench-language works237,207