Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article exposes a tension between politics and aesthetics in the development of early Romantic comedy. In his essay ‘Vom ästhetischen Wert der griechischen Komödie’ (1794), Friedrich Schlegel states that Aristophanes’ Old Comedy evoked pleasure by transgressing societal norms, thereby epitomizing civic liberty. Deviating from Schlegel’s political vision of the comedy, the humour of early Romantic comedies is primarily based upon the transgression of the aesthetic rule of the fourth wall, as Clemens Brentano’s Gustav Wasa (1800) and Ludwig Tieck’s Prolog (1796) illustrate. Looking at Schlegel’s dualistic anthropology, which suggests that the audience is not prepared for a comedy that challenges norms as long as they cannot control their sensuality, closes the ostensible discrepancy between Schlegel and the Romantic playwrights’ preoccupation with the fourth wall. The aesthetic disobedience of early Romantic playwrights can thus be seen as an endeavour to represent liberty without appealing to the sensuality of the audience.
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 | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.067 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".