Bibliographic record
Abstract
On ne peut pas vraiment parler d’un systeme de theâtre au Nouveau-Brunswick. Il y a la deux mondes de theâtre, distincts et independants : le theâtre de langue anglaise et le theâtre de langue francaise. L’histoire, le style, le repertoire et l’infrastructure different profondement de l’un a l’autre. C’est avec un peu d’ironie, peut-etre, qu’on constate que c’est la minorite francophone, qui constitue a peu pres 33% de la population de la province, qui a cree les compagnies et la dramaturgie dominantes et produit les artistes les plus importantes. Je me propose d’explorer dans cet article les contextes uniques de la creation theâtrale au Nouveau-Brunswick. Je ferai une comparaison detaillee des cinq compagnies theâtrales professionnelles : deux compagnies de langue anglaise (Theatre New Brunswick et Live Bait Theatre) et trois compagnies de langue francaise (Theâtre populaire d’Acadie, Theâtre l’Escaouette et Collectif Moncton Sable). A la fin, j’offrirai une tentative d’hypothese pour expliquer les differences importantes entre les deux mondes de theâtre. Tout cela donnera le contexte pour une evaluation de quelques spectacles recents en langue francaise.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 teacher head, 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".