MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3204790963 · doi:10.1080/00787191.2021.1958573

The Early Romantic Comedy of Aesthetic Disobedience

2021· article· en· W3204790963 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueOxford German Studies · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicGerman Literature and Culture Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComedyRomancePleasureLiteraturePoliticsArtPhilosophyAestheticsPsychologyLawPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.932
Threshold uncertainty score0.785

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.026
GPT teacher head0.275
Teacher spread0.249 · 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