MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1596292121 · doi:10.3138/tric.35.1.1

Gender and Empire: Performing Masculinity in Nineteenth-Century Canada

2014· article· en· W1596292121 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Marlis Schweitzer, Stephen Johnson

Bibliographic record

VenueTheatre Research in Canada · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicCanadian Identity and History
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoYork University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsScholarshipMasculinityEmpirePeriod (music)HistoryPanel discussionSession (web analytics)Media studiesPolitical scienceGender studiesSociologyLawAestheticsArtAncient history

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This issue of Theatre Research in Canada responds to a challenging question posed by Jerry Wasserman at the 2010 meeting of the Canadian Association for Theatre Research. During one of the sessions, Jerry commented on what he perceived as the relative absence of panels addressing Canadian theatre and performance history, especially pre-twentieth-century topics; he queried whether this was representative of recent developments in the field. My first thought was “No, of course not. Many of us are working on historical projects.” But I realized that Jerry had a point. At that time, it was quite rare to see an entire CATR panel of papers on pre-twentieth century material. In the days that followed, I approached several colleagues about developing a session for the following year’s conference with the express goal of demonstrating that pre-twentieth century performance scholarship was alive and well in Canada. After some discussion, we decided to build the panel around explorations of empire and masculinity in the pre-Confederation period; this topic struck us as both important and timely in light of Canada’s post-9/11 involvement in neo-imperialist projects.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.155
Threshold uncertainty score0.980

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.004
Science and technology studies0.0450.029
Scholarly communication0.0130.003
Open science0.0030.005
Research integrity0.0030.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0110.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.049
GPT teacher head0.306
Teacher spread0.257 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2014
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTheatre Research in CanadaSame topicCanadian Identity and HistoryFrench-language works237,207