Bibliographic record
Abstract
This book is an interdisciplinary collection of essays examining Goethe’s Faust and its derivatives in European, North American, and South American cultural contexts. It takes both a canonic and archival approach to Faust in studies of adaptations, performances, appropriations, sources, and the translation of the drama contextualized within cultural environments ranging from Gnosticism to artificial intelligence. Lorna Fitzsimmons’ introduction sets this scholarship within a critical framework that draws together work on intertextuality and memory. Alan Corkhill looks at the ways in which the authority of the word is critiqued in Faust and Marlowe’s Dr. Faustus.Robert E. Norton revisits the question of Herder as Faust and the early twentieth-century context in which the claim resonated. J. M. van der Laan explores the symbolic possibilities of the mysterious Eternal-Feminine. Frederick Burwick examines Coleridge’s critique of Goethe’s Faust and his own plans for a Faustian tale on Michael Scott. Andrew Bush demonstrates how Estanislao del Campo’s poem “Fausto” retells Gounod’s opera in the sociolect of Argentine gauchos. David G. John examines complete productions of Goethe’s Faust by Peter Stein and the Goetheanum. Jörg Esleben surveys contemporary Canadian interplay with Goethe’s Faust. Susanne Ledanff discusses the significance of Goethe’s Faust for Werner Fritsch’s avant-garde “Theater of the Now.” Bruce J. MacLennan examines Faust from the perspective of a researcher in several Faustian technologies: artificial intelligence, autonomous robotics, artificial life, and artificial morphogenesis.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.035 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 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".