Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article is a partial report on the author’s three-year (2002–2005) study entitled Sources and Methodology of Theater Research in the View of Scholars and Information Professionals, which provided a picture of theatre research from the points of view of theatre scholars and of performing arts archivists and librarians. The study addressed, within the limits of the sample analyzed, the diversity of interests, approaches, and sources used in theatre research, the role and characteristics of the work of archivists and librarians in this context, and the interaction between these groups. From the study, it emerged that theatre scholars, performing arts archivists and librarians share many similarities, and that what they do may provide powerful tools for addressing many issues that are at the forefront of archival science, such as the proliferation of dynamic and interactive media and sources. RÉSUMÉCet article est un rapport partiel d’une étude menée par l’auteure pendant trois ans (2002-2005), intitulée Sources and Methodology of Theatre Research in the View of Scholars and Information Professionals, qui a permis de brosser un tableau de la recherche dans le domaine du théâtre, du point de vue des chercheurs, des archivistes et des bibliothécaires des arts de la scène. Cette étude abordait, autant que le permettait l’échantillonage établi, la diversité des intérêts, des approches et des sources utilisés pour la recherche dans le domaine du théâtre, le rôle et les caractéristiques du travail des archivistes et des bibliothécaires dans ce contexte, et l’intéraction entre ces deux groupes. Elle concluait que les chercheurs, les archivistes et les bibliothécaires des arts de la scène ont plusieurs points en commun, et que le travail qu’ils font fournit des outils importants pour aborder plusieurs points essentiels qui relèvent des sciences de l’archivistique, telle que la prolifération des médias et des sources dynamiques et interactives.
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 | 0.024 | 0.025 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.012 | 0.016 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.015 | 0.029 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.028 | 0.013 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.013 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.016 | 0.001 |
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".