MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4253445704 · doi:10.1017/cbo9781107239081.026

Censorship

2015· book-chapter· en· W4253445704 on OpenAlexaff
Brad Kent

Bibliographic record

VenueCambridge University Press eBooks · 2015
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicLiterature Analysis and Criticism
Canadian institutionsUniversité Laval
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCensorshipState (computer science)Political scienceLawArtMedia studiesHistorySociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Censorship was a constant threat throughout Bernard Shaw's long career. Even in liberal democracies, works now recognised as modern classics were bowdlerised and banned; publishers and writers were prosecuted in trials; theatres were picketed and raided; and books were withdrawn from shelves and burned in the streets by moral activists, librarians, and booksellers if they happened to go undetected by customs and police officers. In Britain, repression was felt most strongly in the theatre, which resulted in the stage's intellectually impoverished state towards the end of the nineteenth century. This had not always been the case: until the early eighteenth century, the theatre had drawn most of Britain's top literary talents. However, when Henry Fielding staged a relentless string of popular plays satirising government corruption, Sir Robert Walpole's government passed the Licensing Act of 1737. Thereafter, theatre managers were required to submit scripts to the Lord Chamberlain for approval, causing serious writers to flock to the nascent genre of the novel. While the initial intent of theatre censorship had been to curtail political critique, over time successive changes in personnel led to wide and varying interpretations of what was deemed appropriate for the stage. As a result, plays were cut or rejected because of their treatment of politics, or their depictions of nationality, crime, professions, sexuality, religion, race, and class. Yet the authorities deliberately banned plays not only to prevent them from being performed but also to discourage other authors from taking up their pens. By the late-Victorian period, the stifling of the stage had frustrated the intelligentsia and cultural élite enough that a broad resistance coalesced, with Shaw playing a prominent role. Three productions in particular became defining moments of the era. The first of these occurred in 1886, when the Shelley Society, with Shaw serving as press officer, organised a members-only performance of P. B. Shelley's banned horror-incest play The Cenci (1819). Such private performances became the tactic of choice for those seeking to circumvent the law as they were outside the Lord Chamberlain's control. The Independent Theatre Society followed in these lines in 1891 with Ibsen's Ghosts (1881), which had been banned for its portrayal of incest and venereal disease.

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.012
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.014
Threshold uncertainty score0.000

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.012
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0080.037
Scholarly communication0.0110.008
Open science0.0010.005
Research integrity0.0050.007
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0140.004

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 head0.045
GPT teacher head0.236
Teacher spread0.191 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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

Citations1
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCambridge University Press eBooksSame topicLiterature Analysis and CriticismFrench-language works237,207