Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article takes the contested relationship between the Christian canon and the Apocrypha in early modern England as a model for understanding three recent editions of Shakespeare's works. A Shakespeare Apocrypha found its first formal instantiation in C. F. Tucker Brooke's collection in 1908. Brooke's belief that there may be fragments of Shakespeare's writing among the apocryphal drama, but that such instances are neither “Shakespearian” nor warrant inclusion among Shakespeare's works, poses a question for recent work by attributionists that have identified Shakespeare's hand beyond the bounds of the traditional canon. Over the past 30 years, series and editions of Shakespeare's drama have introduced more plays, changing the canon. Three recent Complete Works, the Royal Shakespeare Company edition, the third edition of the Norton Shakespeare and the New Oxford Shakespeare each reproduce Shakespeare's works in two different forms or editions, with a complete works supplemented by another body of texts. The relationships between the constituent editions echo many of the uncertainties between canon and Apocrypha contested in Shakespeare's time. Analysing the tensions between the proto- and deuterocanonical collections of Shakespeare reveals the contingent nature of the canon and should occasion a rethinking of what we mean by Shakespeare's works.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.026 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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".