Bibliographic record
Abstract
This thesis is based on the author?s experience of directing J. Ford, Th. Dekker, and W. Rowley?s play The Witch of Edmonton (1621) in Divadlo DISK in February 2012 as a final performance in his Directing Master Studies at the Theatre Faculty. What is at stake in reviving such a little-known play of the Jacobean era, and performing it in Czech Republic? Can a text written as a reaction to a precise event (a real witch trial) and built as a quasi-documentary depiction of the society of the time, within the aesthetic codes of the time, be relevant material for a lively performance today? This thesis argues that yes, and that The Witch of Edmonton can actually be the starting point of what can be ?political theatre? in a form not only belonging to a long tradition of committed entertainment (the play?s prologue promising us ?mirth and matter?), but especially relevant to today?s audiences and artistic stakes. The first part of the thesis is a detailed contextual analysis of the play, the historical period in which it was written, the conditions of performance of the time, the material it is based on and the way it was dramaturgically built as ?political?. The second part focuses on the author?s analytical attempts to extract the text from its historical context, in particular through comparative history and history of ideas and using the concepts of Brecht?s epic theatre, depicting also how this research served as a preparation for the concept of his performance, a concept that is then explicated in detail. The third and last part is a short account and reflection about the rehearsal process and its outcome from the director?s point of view, making a final statement on the achieved practical work.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.021 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.020 | 0.005 |
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".