Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Nearly three centuries after the Union of the Crowns of Scotland and England, the political, economic, and cultural fortunes of the two countries were firmly interwoven. Scots working in London in the late 1800s occupied a different place in the cultural scene than in earlier centuries, enabling them to achieve greater financial and critical success and to directly impact the development of theatre throughout Great Britain. This chapter will examine the lives and works of three notable London Scots who made significant contributions to the development of British drama at this time: J. M. Barrie (1860–1937), the most financially successful Scottish playwright ever; William Sharp/Fiona Macleod (1855–1905), an influential member of the Scottish Celtic Revival; and William Archer (1856–1924), theatre critic, translator, theorist, and playwright. Prominent across the London theatre circles of late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, Barrie’s plays dominated the professional stages of the time, while both Sharp/Macleod and Archer were central to London’s independent theatre movement, providing a pathway for the works of modern European playwrights such as Ibsen, Maeterlinck, Gorky, and Shaw to be produced in Britain. The abundant works and storied careers of these authors will be explored through a variety of lenses, including the fascinating and sometimes surprising intersections of their lives.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 0.001 |
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.
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".