Janette Dillon. <em>Shakespeare and the Staging of English History</em>. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2011. Pp. 160
Bibliographic record
Abstract
be argued to have had an important influence on the King's Men without directly being involved with productions onstage.Astington presents an artistic community active within London's trade guilds and using their systems of apprenticeship.The book offers a complex, lively, absorbing sense of the acting profession, its 'art' and social networks.At the end, perhaps in case we get too caught up in the romance of the early modern acting troupe, Astington reminds us 'that what they did was work, and exacting, difficult, and not entirely predictable work' (186).To emphasize the actor's work and its product, Astington quotes from Shakespeare and Fletcher's Henry VIII: 'Think ye see / The very persons of our noble story / As they were living' (187).In this vein, Astington provides a helpful 'Appendix of Principal Actors 1558-1660' that offers an excellent resource for those seeking deeper, detailed information.His work is suitable for advanced undergraduates and graduate students upwards, since the writing assumes core knowledge of early modern drama and theatre practice.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".