Bibliographic record
Abstract
It’s spring, a time of renewal and festivity! This special “bonus” issue of Theatre Research in Canada celebrates the journal’s 35 th issue and the beginning of its 35 th year (we officially turn 35 in 2015). For over three decades, TRIC has served as a site of scholarly debate, dialogue, and discovery for a vibrant community of theatre and performance scholars, both in Canada and increasingly beyond its borders. TRIC’s first issue, published in the spring of 1980, featured an eclectic range of articles on such topics as Dora Mavor Moore, the first circus in eastern Canada, Montreal’s Theatre Royal in 1825, the nineteenth-century theatre manager Eugene A. McDowell, and Rick Salutin’s Les Canadiens. In their inaugural editorial, co-founding editors Richard Plant and Ann Saddlemyer expressed hope that the journal would advance research on “the theatrical and dramatic history of Canada” and “provide a forum for the exchange of thoughtful and studied opinion, thereby encouraging the formation of an informed critical perspective within which to view Canadian theatre.” In addition to publishing articles on a broad range of topics, they planned to include excerpts of scripts, book reviews and review articles, and a “Notes and Queries” section with “brief statements of important new projects and specific requests relating to individual research.” Plant and Saddlemyer anticipated that over time the journal would “achieve [. . .] a balanced presentation of contemporary work in the areas of criticism and research into theatre history in Canada.”
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 | 0.004 | 0.021 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.077 | 0.041 |
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".