Shakespeare, again? Australian Literary Adaptations of Shakespeare for Children and Young Adults
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This thesis surveys, codifies and analyses adaptations of Shakespearean plays written by Australian authors for children and Young Adults between 1988 and 2019. It is revealed that the corpus of Australian texts represents a diverse and productive era of adapting Shakespeare. Through an analysis of Australian and international marketplaces, physical and imaginative spaces and the body as a site of meaning, this thesis argues that texts are imbued with the ideological dissemination of Shakespearean cultural capital. Combining current research in children’s literature and Bourdieu’s theory of cultural capital further deepens the critical awareness of the status of Australian literature while extending the pre-existing concentration on British, American and Canadian adaptations. Chapter 1 surveys and codifies the Australian marketplace of adaptations by identifying trends and authorial interests. Chapter 2 examines the representation of classroom, stage and imaginative spaces as contemporary sites upon which the texts cast their adaptations. Chapter 3 analyses gendered bodies as sites that recreate characters from Shakespeare’s plays. Chapter 4 returns to the macrocosmic level of the marketplace to contextualise the Australian texts in the international space. This comparative method determines elements of originality in Australian adaptations. This thesis draws into focus the consequences of the socialising nature of children’s literature by both highlighting the didactic and ideological qualities of the Australian texts.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".