Bibliographic record
Abstract
Antony and Cleopatra: New Critical Essays edited by Sara Munson Deats. Routledge, 2005. $100. ISBN 0–415–96640–X T his volume , number 30 in the Routledge ‘Shakespeare Criticism’ series, opens with the baffling statement from editor Sara Munson Deats, ‘Of all Shakespeare’s problematic plays, I find Antony and Cleopatra to be his most anamorphic drama’ (p. 1). Her intention, presumably, is to imply that the play can be viewed from a multitude of critical and performance perspectives, an interpretation bolstered by her concluding comments that ‘attitudes towards the play’s contradictory figures, its ethos, its structure and its tone, like a vagabond flag upon a stream, have swayed back and forth, lackeying the various critical tides, rotting themselves with motion’ (p. 80). Anamorphic art, however, as Shakespeare understood, and as Deats evidently doesn’t, presents not multiple viewpoints but ‘perspectives, which rightly gaz’d upon | Show nothing but confusion; ey’d awry | Distinguish form’ ( Richard II , II. ii. 18–20). In other words, an anamorphic play would be one that appeared distorted, incomprehensible, and void of sense, save from a single, off-centre viewpoint.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.063 | 0.009 |
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".