MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2734915766 · doi:10.4324/9781315632155-12

Richard III, Tyranny, and the Modern Financial Elite

2015· article· en· W2734915766 on OpenAlexaff
Marlene K. Sokolon

Bibliographic record

VenueSSRN Electronic Journal · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicHousing, Finance, and Neoliberalism
Canadian institutionsConcordia University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEliteGloryAuthoritarianismPower (physics)DemocracyCharismaPersonalityAestheticsPolitical economySociologyPolitical scienceLawArtPsychoanalysisPsychologyPolitics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

If Shakespeare’s Richard III lived today in a contemporary modern democracy where might we find him? Shakespeare’s Richard is the archetypical tyrant. He is willing to kill his brother, nephews, and friends to achieve his ambitions. His desire for glory and power are purely self-interested, without any regard for the common good. Contemporary interpretations connect him to the warlords and rulers of modern authoritarian states. Richard certainly does resemble these modern tyrants; however, Shakespeare also provides his audience with privileged access to Richard’s mind, with all his intentions and strategies. This privileged access allows Shakespeare to explore the personality traits of a tyrant: his relentless ambition; his skillful manipulation of others; his ability to hide his own emotions; his willingness to turn on anyone to achieve his goals. It is in Shakespeare’s exploration of a tyrant’s personality that we may find not only similarities in contemporary authoritarian rulers, but in the faces of our financial elite who led us into the subprime mortgage and other financial crises.

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)0.002
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: Commentary · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.013
Threshold uncertainty score0.025

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0040.013
Scholarly communication0.0050.002
Open science0.0000.002
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.209
Teacher spread0.191 · 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
GenreCommentary

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
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSSRN Electronic JournalSame topicHousing, Finance, and NeoliberalismFrench-language works237,207