MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4321369842 · doi:10.29173/jjs82

Things and Theatricality

2023· article· en· W4321369842 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Lesley Peterson

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Juvenilia Studies · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicShakespeare, Adaptation, and Literary Criticism
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPrologueSpectacleVirtueDramaArtLiteratureTragedy (event)AestheticsHistoryPhilosophyTheologyLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This essay considers consider four of James Austen’s early prologues and epilogues (written for family theatricals between the ages of seventeen and twenty-two) in terms of his engagement with debates both ancient and early modern over the nature of drama and the place of spectacle. More specifically, these paratexts document his ongoing concern with theorizing the ideal theatre: one in which the things of the stage serve their proper role. The discourse of antitheatricality has long associated theatrical performance with such unvirtuous qualities as artifice, dishonesty, and deception, and in his "Prologue to the Tragedy of Matilda" (1782), Austen associates the concrete objects of the stage with all that should be feared and devalued: pure, ancient theatre has been degraded by such things as the “scene gay painted” and the “canvas Palace” (8, l. 3, 5). In his "Prologue to The Rivals" (1784), by contrast, the things that signify theatrical artifice—the mask, the painted scene—are only metaphorical and thus innocuous. By 1788 Austen comes to see theatrical performance as a sign of English virtue, associated with the Restoration when “Charles, & loyalty & wit returned” (“Prologue to The Wonder,” 1788, l. 40) and reframes the "things" of the stage as objects made sacred by tradition and, specifically by association with the Christmas season.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.700
Threshold uncertainty score0.220

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.104
GPT teacher head0.310
Teacher spread0.206 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
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
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Juvenilia StudiesSame topicShakespeare, Adaptation, and Literary CriticismFrench-language works237,207