MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2592104378 · doi:10.5539/ells.v7n1p94

Richard’s Physical Deformity, the Cause or Excuse behind His Wickedness: A Critical Analysis of Shakespeare’s Richard III

2017· article· en· W2592104378 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Samina Akhtar, Muhammad Abdul Rauf, Saima Ikram, Seema Rehman

Bibliographic record

VenueEnglish Language and Literature Studies · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicJungian Analytical Psychology
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWickednessExcusePsychePhilosophyThroneGeniusExaggerationLustPsychoanalysisCharacter (mathematics)FyodorEpistemologyLiteratureLawPsychologyTheology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study is an attempt to explore the intrinsic behavior of Richard, the tragic hero of Shakespeare’s renowned historical play Richard III. This paper interprets deformity is a cause or excuse behind Richard’s wickedness that leads him towards his appalling disaster. It further evaluates the internal conflicts of Richard’s mind, his lust for the throne and riches, and his ferocity to attain his lustful desires. The paper investigates whether Richard used his physical malformation as a defending tool or it is mere hindrance in his goodness. It also throws light on how Richard defends his wicked nature by blaming his deformity. The researcher critically studies the psyche of the genius but evil character through social and psychological perspective. The finding of the paper suggests that deformity reflects Richard’s inward naturefull of evil and vices and turns to be the real cause behind his abysmal calamity. Richard’s malicious disability is the clear example of his inward evil.

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)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.246
Threshold uncertainty score0.773

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.037
GPT teacher head0.398
Teacher spread0.361 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
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

Citations0
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEnglish Language and Literature StudiesSame topicJungian Analytical PsychologyFrench-language works237,207