Bibliographic record
Abstract
Most contemporary playwrights acknowledge that Shakespeare’s dramas are for use as raw material to be assimilated into contemporary mould, not to be revered strictly as untouchable museum pieces. Being the model of all dramatists, Shakespeare had a great influence on English theatre, his plays are still performed throughout the world, and all kinds of new, experimental work find inspiration in them. This paper investigates the intertextual relationships between William Shakespeare’s King Lear (1606) and Edward Bond’s Lear (1978). The main objective of the paper is to explore the extent to which Bond manages to use Shakespeare’s King Lear as an intertext to convey his contemporary version of Shakespearean classic. Two research questions are tackled here: first, how does Shakespeare’s King Lear function as a point of departure for Bond’s contemporary version? Second, to what extent does Bond deviate from Shakespeare to prove his originality in Lear? The paper reveals that Bond’s manipulation of intertextuality does not mean that he puts his originality aside. He proves his originality by relating the events of the old story to contemporary issues which in turn makes the story keep pace with modern time.
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 | 0.039 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".