Anton Wagner, editor. Establishing Our Boundaries: English-Canadian Theatre Criticism
Bibliographic record
Abstract
When I was in elementary school, I remember my class being assigned a geography project. We were to outline and shade in colour a map of the Dominion of Canada. The map was mimeographed and distributed to each student. We were instructed to outline and label the ten provinces and two territories and to shade them in pink. Pink, it was explained, was the recognized colour of the British Commonwealth nations. The sea was to be blue. I remember that it was extremely important to me that I use Laurentian brand coloured pencils. The completed map was graded for how clearly and accurately we reproduced the lines on the mimeograph, and for how neatly and uniformly we shaded the colour. This year my fifteen year old son was asked, as part of the province of Ontario's new high school curriculum, to produce a similar map. In this case, his class was asked to outline each province and the three territories in the colour of their choice. He used a combination of marker and coloured pencil, no particular brand, and was graded for "presentation and organization." His sea, too, was blue. Each class was invited to be as creative as possible in creating their map of Canada within the confines and parameters of the exercise. If it were possible to place these maps side by side, a close reading might tell much about a shifting and evolving set of social and political values, as well as the individual skill employed, that allowed each student to chart their nation so differently. This example is perhaps too literal a metaphor for the exercise undertaken by the collection of essays contained in Establishing Our Boundaries: English Canadian Theatre Criticism, but in some respects it serves.
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 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.020 | 0.008 |
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".