MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3042320802 · doi:10.1353/pgn.2020.0052

Approaches to Teaching Shakespeare's English History Plays ed. by Laurie Ellinghausen

2020· article· en· W3042320802 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Rajiv Thind

Bibliographic record

VenueParergon · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicShakespeare, Adaptation, and Literary Criticism
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsScholarshipPaceNarrativeClassicsHistorySection (typography)Media studiesLiteratureSociologyLawArtPolitical scienceComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Reviewed by: Approaches to Teaching Shakespeare's English History Plays ed. by Laurie Ellinghausen Rajiv Thind Ellinghausen, Laurie, ed., Approaches to Teaching Shakespeare's English History Plays (Approaches to Teaching World Literature), New York, The Modern Language Association of America, 2017; paperback; pp. x, 249; R.R.P. US $24.00; ISBN 9781603293006. Every year William Shakespeare–related scholarship generates articles and books at a pace too dizzying even for specialists. This volume, devoted to a specific sub-genre—English history plays—features thirty-one contributors who have taught the plays in diverse colleges and universities in the United States, United Kingdom, and Canada. With such a cornucopia of opinions, how merciful of the editor Laurie Ellinghausen to devote the first thirty pages of the book to give us an overview of the field. This is by far the most informative and readable section of the book, in which Ellinghausen reviews all major critical editions and multimedia adaptations of the plays available in the great Shakespeare marketplace. I do wish, however, that the book had made it abundantly clear that Shakespeare's English history plays are not necessarily a good way to learn about English history. There is much to be said about how the plays have distorted history to perpetuate the official state and church propaganda, as scholars such as Stephen Greenblatt, David Kastan, Leonard Tennenhouse, and David Womersley have reminded us. Ellinghausen herself claims that the plays show us how 'commoners, and the working classes also challenge official narratives of history' and goes on to cite 'Jack Cade's rebellion' as one of the instances (p. 14). But as Richard Helgerson has shown in his acclaimed Forms of Nationhood (University of Chicago Press, 1992), Shakespeare's 2 Henry VI also ridicules the supposedly revolutionary working classes as populist fools and buffoons. Glenn Odom offers a useful survey of primary sources that Shakespeare draws upon in his history plays. M. G. Aune mentions how students can be encouraged to compare King John with various primary sources (available online) to assess Shakespeare's dramatic choices. William A. Oram and Howard Nenner review Shakespeare's political contexts to analyse the character of Richard III. Jonathan Hart focuses on political rhetoric in various history plays. Mary Janell Metzger reads Montaigne to interpret Richard III as a sceptical text. David J. Baker focuses on British cartography and ethnic diversity. Barbara Sebek studies how the plays imagine the world beyond Britain to develop a global consciousness. Phyllis Rackin offers illuminating analyses of various female characters. Maya Mathur relies on film and television adaptations to teach the Henry IV plays. Ruben Espinosa draws attention to non-English strangers in Henry V. Like many other contributors in this collection Hugh Macrae Richmond writes about using [End Page 301] internet sources to teach Shakespeare. Some contentions aside, the book is a rich pedagogical resource. Rajiv Thind The University of Queensland & University of Canterbury Copyright © 2020 Rajiv Thind

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)0.003
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: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.027
Threshold uncertainty score0.077

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0060.005
Scholarly communication0.0090.007
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0030.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0230.011

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 head0.142
GPT teacher head0.210
Teacher spread0.069 · 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
GenreOther

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

Citations1
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueParergonSame topicShakespeare, Adaptation, and Literary CriticismFrench-language works237,207