Scripting the Witch. Voice, Gender and Power in The Witch of Edmonton (Rowley, Dekker\nand Ford 1621) and Witchcraft (Baillie 1836)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The current thesis compares two plays based on historical witchcraft trials of the\nseventeenth century in England and Scotland, respectively: The Witch of Edmonton\n(1621) by Rowley, Dekker and Ford, and Witchcraft (1836) by Joanna Baillie. The\nplays are examined in order to establish why these two plays stage the witch; how the\nwitch is staged; and what the staging of the witch communicates regarding power and\ngender. The theoretical perspective is provided by the theories of Michel Foucault and\nSimone de Beauvoir. The study finds that both plays not only actively employ\nhistorical witchcraft narratives but also expose the social mechanisms behind them.\nBy staging witch characters and giving them individual voices, the plays direct their\ncriticism at all levels of society. Thus the witch characters become more than\ndisempowered victims. Although they are forced by a social script to take on the role\nof the witch, the role restores a degree of power to them. These aspects find resonance\nin Foucault’s concept of power and performance, whereas de Beauvoir’s concept of\nthe “Eternal Feminine” complements and illustrates how the cultural construction of\ngender influences the limited choice open to the witch characters.\nAcknowledgements
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 | 0.005 | 0.024 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".