Tamara Karsavina and J. M. Barrie’s <i>The Truth about the Russian Dancers</i>
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Chapter 2 focuses on J. M. Barrie’s The Truth about the Russian Dancers (1920): a one-act play that integrated textual and choreographic expression in such a way as to be deemed an important advance in the period’s quest for ‘a new development of dramatic art’. Tracing the play’s textual evolution, this chapter unfolds how Barrie’s hybrid ‘ballet-play’ was shaped both by his spectatorship of the Ballets Russes and by his close collaboration with the Diaghilev ballerina Tamara Karsavina. This analysis reveals Barrie’s concerns with the theatrical value of dance and non-linguistic aesthetic forms, evoking the Mallarméan interests of symbolist playwrights such as Maurice Maeterlinck and Paul Claudel. The chapter then turns to the play’s neglected 1926 revival, showing how the work evolved to offer a striking commentary on Britain’s fraught post-war relationship with Russia, Russian art, and growing anxieties about Soviet Bolshevism.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 0.002 |
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.
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".