Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Witch of Edmonton is a witchcraft play based on the real witch trial in 1621 at Edmonton, England. In Jacobean era, there were two conflicting views on witches and witchcraft trials in general; one is the radical scepticism on witchcraft and the other is the demonological view sometimes interweaved with sensationalism about witchcraft discourses. Both of these views are reflected in the play. The playwrights seems to apply a sympathetic view on the protagonist; she is represented on stage as a scapegoat sacrificed in material and class conflict. However, this sort of social critical perspective is undercut as the play accepts popular images of a witch as a servant of a devil and one who enjoys pseudo-sexual relationship with the Familiar, Devil-dog. So there comes to exist two conflicting voices in the play and critics have repeatedly pointed out its representational ambivalence. In this study, by focusing on `a bad tongue` of the woman accused of witchcraft - cursing, swearing and threatening, I tried to show how a witch is defined as a witch in a community at first and comes to be transformed into a powerful accuser about `real witches` in society on the stage. In the process the devil dog ensnares her into malicious sports of evil doings and finally leads her to punishment. This study regards the appearance of the devil dog as a representational strategy that allows various interpretations on witch-making possible at early modern period. Furthermore, with some theatrical devices such as metatheatrical structures, the play induces audiences to consider self-reflexibly the nature of evil forces in our everyday reality in terms of witch-making performance on stage.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.015 | 0.002 |
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".