“Heredity, Heredity!”: Recovering Henry James’s <i>The Reprobate</i> in Its Scientific and Theatrical Contexts
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The reception of Henry James’s plays has long been scripted by his fiction, overshadowing James’s broad engagement with the concerns of fin-de-siècle drama. This article offers a different approach, reading his play The Reprobate (1895) within its theatrical context and emphasizing its relations with the genre of “Ibsen parodies” – in particular, those produced by authors such as J.M. Barrie and Robert Williams Buchanan. Attention to the play’s humorous treatment of heredity – in the midst of a theatrical scene engaging with the paradigm of degeneration – reveals James as surprisingly in step with dramatic developments informed by contemporary evolutionary paradigms, ideas about gender, and comedic genres. The Reprobate’s clear relationship to works by Ibsen, Barrie, and others – as well as the intellectual framework it shares with plays by George Bernard Shaw – suggests the need to reconsider the entrenched view of James’s output in this period, especially as a playwright.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.018 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".