Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT This article asks why the radical authors Georg Büchner (1813–37) and Bertolt Brecht (1898–1956) were particularly interested in the life and works of Jakob Michael Reinhold Lenz (1751–92). The enquiry proceeds by reading Lenz's theoretical and literary works, such as his treatise Anmerkungen übers Theater (1774) and his plays Die Soldaten (1776) and Der Hofmeister (1774), through the later authors’ various writings. This article particularly focuses on all three authors’ use and analysis of observational writing for a radical, social purpose. It begins with a discussion of Lenz's stance on the imitation of nature in his writings on the theatre and how this affects his social commentary through realistic social depiction. This is followed by an examination of Büchner's use of Lenz's writings, particularly in the ‘Kunstgespräch’ section of the narrative fragment Lenz and in his play Woyzeck (1836), and then by Brecht's theoretical writing on the ‘realistic style’ (‘realistische Schreibweise’) in the history of German dramaturgy and his new approach in the adaptation of Der Hofmeister. The article concludes that Lenz's realistic style was taken up by his successors but that, especially in his depiction of and commentary on individuality, it maintains unique value in itself.
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 | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.024 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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.
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".