MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4409478865 · doi:10.53103/cjlls.v4i6.185

Shakespearean Paradigm of Villainies from Hamlet by Shakespeare and Locating Villainies in Modernity and Modern Politics

2024· article· en· W4409478865 on OpenAlexvenueno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Language and Literature Studies · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicShakespeare, Adaptation, and Literary Criticism
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsModernityHAMLET (protein complex)PoliticsArtLiteratureAestheticsPhilosophyEpistemologyPolitical scienceLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Hamlet by Shakespeare gives rise to discussion on Hamlet's attitude to women, fulfillment of the readers' expectation of justice, connection of Hamlet's death with socio-moral values, impact of the pirate politics of the Elizabethan period on Hamlet, and Hamlet's revenge maintaining morality.But there is an unexplored area of unearthing the nature of the villainies by Claudius and Gertrude to understand the Shakespearean paradigm of villainy and applying the paradigm to locate the villainies of the modern world.Thus, this study aims at exploring how, from the villainies of Claudius and Gertrude in Hamlet, Shakespeare constructs his paradigm of villainy and how, by applying the paradigm, villainies in modernity and modern politics can be located.To conduct this study, the approaches of moral criticism and New Humanism were utilized.The results show that ingratitude, vulgarity, chaos, amoral ambitions and their amoral means, and deceptions, as held by Claudius and Gertrude, construct the Shakespearean paradigm of villainy.By applying this paradigm, villainies have been identified in modernity and modern politics, especially that of the USA.The findings of the research may contribute to enlightening the readers by unmasking the intricate doings of evil both in Hamlet and the modern world.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.365
Threshold uncertainty score0.991

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.019
GPT teacher head0.248
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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
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 venueCanadian Journal of Language and Literature StudiesSame topicShakespeare, Adaptation, and Literary CriticismFrench-language works237,207