Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Modernism after the Ballets Russes recovers the striking yet understudied role that Serge Diaghilev’s Ballets Russes played in the development of modernist theatre in Britain. Diaghilev’s company holds a renowned position in modernism across various arts. Yet its contributions to dramatic literature and dramaturgy have remained surprisingly elusive. This book establishes the Ballets Russes as an integral part of British theatre history, revealing how the company’s avant-garde repertoire inspired the creation of new composition strategies and performance techniques that privileged the immediacy of expression offered by the moving, dancing body. It shows that Diaghilev ballets provided new ways of thinking about the relationship between the literary and embodied aspects of dramatic performance, fuelling collaborations between eminent dramatists and theatre practitioners—Harley Granville Barker, J. M. Barrie, Terence Gray, and W. H. Auden—and lesser-known choreographers: Cecil Sharp, Tamara Karsavina, Ninette de Valois, and Rupert Doone. Through the prism of the Ballets Russes, this group of artists crafted distinctive new theatrical forms, including a whimsical terpsichorean fantasia and a politically subversive poetic–dramatic satire, as well as new methods of staging Shakespearean comedy and Attic tragedy. Together, this book contends, these literary and dramaturgical innovations represent a previously neglected strand of modernism: one that saw the dramatic power of the moving body expand the expressive resources of the period’s theatrical arts.
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 | 0.006 | 0.020 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 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".