MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4393076751 · doi:10.5430/wjel.v14n4p41

The Visions of a Visionary—Girish Karnard’s Play The Dreams of Tipu Sultan

2024· article· en· W4393076751 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Wahaj Unnisa Warda, Mohammad Rezaul Karim

Bibliographic record

VenueWorld Journal of English Language · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicCultural and Sociopolitical Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersDeanship of Scientific Research, Prince Sattam bin Abdulaziz UniversityPrince Sattam bin Abdulaziz University
KeywordsVisionArtPhilosophyTheology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Indian playwright Girish Karnad seeks to challenge the conventional historical portrayal of Tipu Sultan in his play Dreams of Tipu Sultan by emphasizing Tipu’s personal and psychological experiences. As a pioneering playwright known for blending diverse theatrical styles, Karnad integrates real historical events with creative storytelling to present Tipu Sultan as a complex figure deserving of both respect and empathy. The play begins not with the central character of Tipu Sultan, but with two historians, Mysorian Kirmani and the British Colin Mackenzie. These historians serve as a lens through which the audience can explore and question the traditional narratives surrounding Tipu Sultan’s life and reign. They raise important inquiries about the authenticity of historical accounts and traditional narratives and encourage a more nuanced understanding of Tipu Sultan’s motivations, relationships, and inner world. By delving into the personal and psychological experiences of Tipu Sultan, Karnad invites us to question and reevaluate our understanding of history, new historicism, and the human portrayal of the historical figure Tipu Sultan.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.043
Threshold uncertainty score0.085

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0110.013
Scholarly communication0.0050.002
Open science0.0010.004
Research integrity0.0010.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.014
GPT teacher head0.257
Teacher spread0.242 · 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
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
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueWorld Journal of English LanguageSame topicCultural and Sociopolitical StudiesFrench-language works237,207