MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W2174850194 · doi:10.1353/dtc.2007.0010

The Article, the Debate, the Book

2007· article· en· W2174850194 sur OpenAlexaboutno aff
Les Essif

Notice bibliographique

RevueJournal of dramatic theory and criticism · 2007
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineArts and Humanities
ThématiqueSamuel Beckett and Modernism
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésScholarshipPublishingVariety (cybernetics)CornerstoneDramaCriticismSociologyMedia studiesArtLiteratureVisual artsLawPolitical scienceComputer science

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

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 enseignants

Ni 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.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,004
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Théorique ou conceptuel · Signal consensuel: Théorique ou conceptuel
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,319
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,987

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0040,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0000,000
Bibliométrie0,0000,000
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0010,001
Communication savante0,0000,000
Science ouverte0,0000,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,000
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0000,000

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.

Tête enseignante Opus0,020
Tête enseignante GPT0,257
Écart entre enseignants0,237 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_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 découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeThéorique ou conceptuel
Domainenon disponible
GenreEmpirique

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations0
Publié2007
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueJournal of dramatic theory and criticismMême sujetSamuel Beckett and ModernismTravaux en français237 207