MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

“I believe my play is really ‘going through’”: Edith Wharton’s <i>The Shadow of a Doubt</i> : A Play in Three Acts in Performance

2023· article· en· W4394967698 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Mary Chinery

Bibliographic record

VenueEdith Wharton Review · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicAmerican and British Literature Analysis
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsShadow (psychology)PhilosophyArt historyPsychoanalysisArtPsychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Edith Wharton’s The Shadow of a Doubt, a play in three acts, has generated extensive publicity as well as interest in staged readings. Now, The Shadow of a Doubt has been completely professionally staged for the first time at the 2023 Shaw Festival’s Royal George Theatre in Niagara-on-the-Lake, Ontario. Director Peter Hinton-Davis sought to preserve Wharton’s original intentions as well as offer a new interpretation of this now modern classic. In early 1901, the play was already in rehearsal for a matinee with the Empire Theatre Acting Company, directed by Charles Frohman and starring Elsie De Wolfe. In his letters, Walter Berry asks how the rehearsals are going and gossips about De Wolfe. In addition, an actual promptbook from this 1901 production of The Shadow of a Doubt was located at the New York Public Library Billy Rose Theatre Division. This archival treasure shows the revisions to the play as it was in rehearsals and includes blocking and stage directions. This history suggests Wharton was an engaged playwright, attending rehearsals and participating in all aspects of the dramatic artistic experience.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
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: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.095
Threshold uncertainty score0.189

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0050.008
Science and technology studies0.0040.010
Scholarly communication0.0080.005
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.002

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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.253
Teacher spread0.229 · 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
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEdith Wharton ReviewSame topicAmerican and British Literature AnalysisFrench-language works237,207