MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4220853716 · doi:10.3138/md-65-1-1166

Artaud’s Surgical Theatre: War, Medicine, and Regeneration

2022· article· en· W4220853716 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Warren Kluber

Bibliographic record

VenueModern Drama · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicNeurology and Historical Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsArtFirst world warLiteraturePsychoanalysisPsychologyHumanities

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In 1916, as the adolescent Antonin Artaud was treated for “war neurosis” in a military hospital, he witnessed the birth of modern plastic surgery. These procedures, which rearranged injured bodies in new constellations of flesh and bone, helped to inspire Artaud’s first theatrical foray. “The spectator,” he writes in 1926, “will go to the theater the way he goes to the surgeon.” I argue that literal surgical practice is crucial to Artaud’s surgical metaphors. Plastic surgery revealed to Artaud the body’s plasticity: its capacity to morph, regrow, and heal. While the physical culture movement in interwar France promoted militarized and medicalized models of the body, Artaud used surgical motifs in his plays, poems, and films to explore how physical and mental habits might be dissevered and how they might regenerate. Although Artaud ultimately considered his attempts at theatrical surgery to have failed, I conclude by looking at current applied theatre work with US military veterans, which has been shown to transform participants’ neural networks – performing, as Artaud would put it, a kind of “brain surgery.”

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.031

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0090.029
Scholarly communication0.0080.003
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0030.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.039
GPT teacher head0.260
Teacher spread0.221 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueModern DramaSame topicNeurology and Historical StudiesFrench-language works237,207