Bibliographic record
Abstract
Though J. M. Barrie`s Peter Pan has been considered a conventional regular drama, some scholars have recently argued it is an example of traditional British pantomime, or a variation thereof. However its genre classification is becoming more complicated, as these arguments have used different source materials in support of their theses; some refer to Barrie`s 1904 manuscript, some the 1905 London premiere, while others cite the printed edition of 1928. The aims of this project are twofold: to establish that these three texts are very different from each other and to compare each text with the major characteristics of traditional British pantomime. By doing so this project suggests that Peter Pan, in its development from the manuscript to the printed edition, evolved into a unique, carnivalesque work of pantomime. To analyze this evolution, it is necessary to firstly understand what British pantomime is, as this can shed light on how Barrie altered or modified its conventional structure and deviated from its traditions. This paper, as the first part of the project, thus compares a traditional pantomime with Barrie`s manuscript. This will show that, from the very beginning of the writing, Barrie had pantomime in mind as a template, as the structure of the work, its subtitle and the transvestite characters all demonstrate. Thus Peter becomes a release of pure animal spirits, an expression of the essence of carnival and of the Saturnalia, turning the world upside-down.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.022 | 0.006 |
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".