Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Volume 26.1-2 of Theatre Research in Canada / Recherches theatrales au Canada marks at least two significant conclusions. First, it brings to a close the process of transforming a national conference into a scholarly publication. Shifting Tides: Atlantic Canadian Theatre Yesterday, Today, and Tomorrow was held at the Graduate Centre for Study of Drama, University of Toronto in March of 2004. The event brought theatre scholars and students together with a large number of playwrights, directors, actors, designers, producers, and administrators from across Eastern Canada. For three days the participants shared academic papers, play readings, workshops, performances, and presentations (with a live video conference thrown in for good measure). In the process, a significant window was opened on an underexposed and under-appreciated region of dramatic and theatrical activity in this country. At the same time, I believe, the event succeeded in fostering an uncommon degree of interaction across disciplinary and professional borders too rarely challenged in the context of academic meetings. And, finally, Shifting Tides opened the doors (to extend the domestic metaphor) on multiple ongoing professional and artistic relationships. As one of the coordinators of the conference, I can attest to out gratification and, indeed, pride in all these accomplishments. My co-editors on this volume are, in fact, the same individuals with whom I collaborated in bringing the Shifting Tides Conference into reality: Natalie Alvarez (now of Brock University) and Michael Devine (of Acadia University). While Michael's obligations to his home institution in Nova Scotia ruade him a more distant participant as the conference approached, both these new scholars worked extensively on issues large and small, from the original conceptualization of the event through to the minutest detail of its realization. The same dedication has characterized their involvement in the editing of this volume, and they have repeatedly proven their insight, professionalism, and sense of rigour. The articles and Forum pieces that have been developed for this current issue of TRiC/RTaC all have their beginnings in the Shifting Tides Conference. Addressing a wide range of topics from diverse theoretical and methodological perspectives, this collection of essays further demonstrates the diversity of theatrical interests and activity--practical, theoretical, and historical--that characterizes Atlantic Canada. Further, beyond the scholarly analyses and research documentation featured in these pages, the volume also captures additional, context-specific aspects of the conference. These include play extracts from many of the writers who gave staged readings, introductory and concluding comments from keynote presenters, and interviews with or illustrated presentations by guest theatrical companies. Indeed, in order to reflect the oral quality of the play readings, the play extracts have not been standardized into MLA formatting, but rather largely represent the individual textual voices of the individual playwrights. The result, we hope, will be more than a proceedings (as all articles and Forum pieces were thoroughly revised and peer assessed), but also more than a related body of traditional scholarly articles. Rather, we have attempted to make a substantial contribution to the existing literature on Atlantic Canadian theatre and drama while, at the same time, we have tried to capture some of the enthusiasm, variety, and interactive optimism of the event itself. The second conclusion that this volume represents relates to my role as editor. As I announced in the introduction to volume 25.1-2, with this current publication I finish my tenure as general editor and adopt, instead, the mantle of executive editor. Glen Nichols of the Universite de Moncton assumes the general editor responsibilities as of the next issue, 27.1, a single-issue of general interest articles. …
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 machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,001 | 0,006 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,004 | 0,003 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,003 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,010 | 0,005 |
| Science ouverte | 0,003 | 0,003 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,004 | 0,003 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,767 | 0,759 |
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 source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), 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 ».