Fusing the Nuclear Community: Intercultural Memory, Hiroshima 1945 and the Chronotopic Dramaturgy of Marie Clements’s <i>Burning Vision</i>
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In recent years, attention toMarie Clements’s work as a playwright has gradually accumulated.Her plays are eagerly produced across Canada and around the world. Scholarly articles have appeared on these pages, as well as in Canadian Theatre Review, Theatre Research International, and the Baylor Journal of Theatre and Performance, and panel papers focusing on her work have been presented at conferences fromVancouver to Belgium.Much of this attention has dealt with three mutually definitive aspects of her plays: their autobiographical relevance to Clements’s life and worldview, their aboriginality, and their staging of women. That is to say, for the most part attention to Clements’s work has been predicated on questions of identity that flow from the “personal engagement with the text by its writer-actor” (Gilbert,“Shine” 25). Here I consider her award-winning play Burning Vision as performing cultures in ways that are productively political, imaginative, theatrical, and complex. I argue thatmoments of reciprocal communication between cultures—“intercultural handshakes”— are negotiated by Clements as “timespace” moments through a Dene-inspired form of “chronotopic dramaturgy” which, followingMikhail Bakhtin and Ric Knowles, re-visions the ways in which time and space structure a theatrical work and inform our understanding of the political effects at play.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.033 | 0.023 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.000 |
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".