Bibliographic record
Abstract
Luigi Pirandello’s drama, at its heart, deals with the problems of being and becoming, identity, and creativity. His works are centered upon the nature of personal experience and the ways in which we perceive and interact with the world and its inhabitants. But often overlooked is the role that time plays in those dramas’ already complicated and divisive subject matter. While concepts and themes related to time—e.g., memory and narrative—are often at the core of Pirandello’s drama, a cohesive approach to the topic of time and temporality in his work is lacking. This thesis, using three of Pirandello’s majors plays as case studies, will offer an analysis of the playwright’s dramaturgical management of time as a textual theme, as the basis of dramatic narrative, and—in the guise of memory and anticipation—as the ontological foundation of the concept of dramatic character. These plays, written in the midst of the general discourse on time and temporality at work in the early part of the 20th-century, lend themselves to be read in dialogue with 1) the philosophical exploration of the concept of time, memory, and duration developed by Bergson, 2) the phenomenology of internal time consciousness advanced by Husserl, 3) Heidegger’s idea of temporality as the underlying structure of both being and meaning, and 4) Einstein’s consideration of the relativity of mankind’s perception of events in the space-time continuum. In this thesis, I will demonstrate that Pirandello was working at the intersection of trends deriving from each of these philosophical premises, creating a theory of dramatic form that is structured by the very concept it illustrates thematically, namely the relativity of time in man’s experience of the world and the notion of temporality as the foundation of all consciousness.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 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".