“She did make defect perfection”—The Perfection of the Female Monster: Shakespeare’s Cleopatra and the Querelle des Femmes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
“She did make defect perfection” (Antony and Cleopatra 2.2.242): by this formula, Enobarbus sums up the essence of Cleopatra’s inimitable charm. Shakespeare’s Cleopatra is a study of women and women: in other words, Shakespeare’s Cleopatra is less fiction than an investigation of the other sex. “Was will das Weib?” asked Freud (if we are to believe Marie Bonaparte’s testimony), thus admitting that the great question psychoanalysis has been unable to answer is the enigma of feminine desire. Shakespeare’s Cleopatra represents this enigma, which takes the form of a perfection resulting from a series of paradoxes: beauty and maturity, cunning and folly, fidelity and betrayal, jealousy and indifference, majesty and debauchery, expense and economy, audacity and fragility, truth and lies. Cleopatra’s perfection is the sum of all possible paradoxes. What is the point of this dizzying interplay of paradoxes? What is the resulting perfection?
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".