Notice bibliographique
Résumé
98 Journal of Dramatic Theory and Criticism The Article, the Debate, the Book Les Essif While I’ve never had the opportunity to become personally acquainted with John Gronbeck-Tedesco, I know I speak for a mass of scholars, teachers, and practitioners whose lives he has touched and whose condition he has improved. So I’d like to recount my experience of the publication of an article in JDTC, an essay that forged the cornerstone of my first book (Empty Figure on an Empty Stage) and an experience that really bolstered my confidence and helped launch and orient my scholarly career. My connection with John and the journal began when, as a graduate student, I attended a talk he presented on the topic of publishing in the field. His remarks really stuck with me, especially those emphasizing the need to seriously consider unconventional, alternative topics and approaches to theatre research and to inform close textual analysis with a variety of critical and creative writings. Subsequently, in the late 1980s, I spent much of my dissertation-writing time and the first year of my postdoctoral work in France. In 1992, as a freshly minted assistant professor looking to place a major article using an unorthodox approach to Beckett’s empty theatrical space (in accordance with John’s encouragement to be original), I was not as familiar withAmerican theatre-drama-performance scholarship—including professional journals—as I would’ve liked to be. It took me some time to identify the most suitable (top) journals for my article.After receiving cursory and unhelpful rejection letters from two of these, I only slightly revised the essay and sent it to JDTC. In short, this submission experience was successful, not only because the essay was accepted but also for the feedback and encouragement I received. I had the feeling that, true to the journal’s editorial statement, the JDTC editors and readers were genuinely more open to less mainstream ideas, arguments, and critical approaches. As proof of the controversial nature of my article, following its appearance several fellow scholars around the U.S. sent me emails taking a stand more or less for or against the critical approach I had elaborated. Several other colleagues approached me at professional conferences to discuss the issue. One in particular made a special effort in this regard and followed up our conference discussion and email exchange by publishing an essay in JDTC which respectfully, overtly, and methodically challenged the utility of my critical approach. I knew the objections raised were representative of a larger body of scholars, so the timely appearance of Les Essif, professor of French studies at the University of Tennessee, has recently published The French Play: Exploring Theatre “Re-creatively” with Foreign Language Students (U of Calgary P, 2006). Fall 2007 99 this clearly articulated counterargument allowed me to address the objections and sharpen some of the arguments in my book, which I was preparing for publication with Indiana University Press. Though at first I was a bit nervous about this pressure to defend my writing, in the end it provided a vital intellectual debate that helped me get a better grip on my research topic, my writing, and the politics of the profession. The publication of my JDTC article and the publication of the challenge to it were equally consequential for the quality of my first book. In addition to all the excellent scholarship and reviews I’ve read in the journal over the years, because of this happy and engaging rite de passage, JDTC (largely personified in the name of Gronbeck-Tedesco) has always been special to me and my career. ...
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,004 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».