Dancing with the Devil: Carnival and the True Witch of The Witch of Edmonton
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The most obvious carnivalesque aspects in Dekker, Ford and Rowley’s The Witch of Edmonton—the Morris dancers and their leader Cuddy Banks, and the shapeshifting demon Dog—have received the bulk of scholarly attention. However, very little has been written about the cagey, pregnant servant girl Winifred, who as I argue in this thesis more fully embodies Carnival’s aspects of rebirth and renewal. Winifred endures the play’s turmoil by inventing and reinventing herself. Her powers of creation are antithetical to the downfalls of the play’s two main characters—Frank Thorney and Elizabeth Sawyer, the play’s eponymous witch—as well as the mischief created by the devilish Dog, who boasts a considerable amount of magical powers, but still must work within tight parameters. Both Sawyer and Frank are victims of societal pressures, bowing to what Edmonton expects of them, but this is not the case with Winifred. Sawyer and Frank end the play hanging from the gallows, whereas Winifred survives and thrives. She does so by refusing to allow anyone to dictate who she is. My aim for this essay is to illustrate how the playwrights closely align Winifred with the spirit of Carnival and in so doing cast her as the true Witch of Edmonton.
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.015 | 0.020 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".