Bibliographic record
Abstract
Shakespeare's first tragedy, Titus Andronicus , centers on an act of violation. Titus' daughter Lavinia has been raped in the woods by the Goths Chiron and Demetrius. They cut out her tongue and cut off her hands, taking language away from her. Her uncle Marcus finds her and brings her back to Rome, and to her father. What follows is a moment whose implications resonate throughout this play, and through the plays that follow. Titus at first does not recognize her: “But who comes with our brother Marcus here?” Marcus presents her with the words: “This was thy daughter.” Titus replies, “Why, Marcus, so she is” (III.i.63–64). The question is not, what has happened to her? but, who is she? Her body mutilated and her language gone, she seems to Marcus no longer Lavinia but a nameless thing that used to be Lavinia. But for Titus, she is still Lavinia. Shakespeare's interest in the idea of violation has been examined by critics from a number of angles. To name only two, Linda Woodbridge sees it in cultural terms, in the light of what she calls “magical thinking”; Heather Dubrow relates it to invasions of domestic space. I would like to trace the idea of violation and its implications through the working of the play text itself. Titus Andronicus is not just a cultural document but a play – an early, self-conscious play at that.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.543 | 0.349 |
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; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.
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".