American Dream or Avaratia: Critical Circumspectis of American Dream Through Ages
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper is an attempt to apply Jacques Derrida’s theory of Deconstruction to American Dream and its treatment in the language of Edward Albee’s play American Dream and other American Playwrights. Different deconstructive terms have been applied to understand and analyze the language of Albee’s The American Dream. Deconstructive terms; Différance, Erasure and Aporia have been applied to the language used by Albee to analyze the concept of American dream and its relation to its context of old American Dream as envisaged by the founding fathers and the new American Dream as defined by James Truslow Adams. These deconstructive terms will help readers to understand the themes and language of postmodern and post war American drama in general and those of Albee’s in particular. This, in turn, makes the reader realize that American dream as depicted in modern American Playwrights is materialistic, illogical, futile and bizarre: Albee’s play reflects modern American society and its sensibility. Language of modern is simple yet it communicates multi-faceted interpretations and those interpretations have been explored in the light of all these deconstructive terms. The basic purpose of involving these deconstructive terms in analyzing the language of Albee’s The American Dream and the other major postmodern American plays is not only to understand the mutability and fluidity in the diction but also to expose absurdity and apparent meaninglessness in it.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".