The Exilic Teens: On the Intracultural Encounters in Wajdi Mouawad’s Theatre
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In his critique of intercultural ideology and practice in theatre, Rustom Bharucha proposes an alternative concept, intraculturalism, which describes the dynamics of the interaction between various cultural contexts within a single nation or a theatre production. When applied to the discussion of exilic identity, the dynamic of the intracultural takes on a different meaning: it identifies the exilic self as a territory of multiple, unmarked discourses, the discourses that are still waiting to be recognized, acknowledged, and brought into coherent dialogue with each other. Secondly, Bharucha extends his notion of the intracultural to describe the art of the theatrical mise en scène as the process of creating a multivocal performance discourse that still must be acknowledged as a homogeneous utterance. In theatre, this homogeneity of multiple discourses originates within three spheres: the stage,between stage and audience, and within the audience itself. In the theatre of exilic artists, this intricate mise en scène is also defined by the dynamic of the intracultural encounters that simultaneously appear at the levels of the creator’s exilic identity and that of his/her exilic art. The dramatic texts and productions of Lebanese-Québécois artist WajdiMouawad are examples of personal,dramatic, and theatrical intraculturalismthat formthe basis for this phenomenon, and thus are the focus points chosen for this study.
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 | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.020 | 0.015 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".