Fables of (Cuban) Exile: Special Periods and Queer Moments in Eduardo Machado’s <i>Floating Island Plays</i>
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Between the time of its publication by the Theatre Communications Group in 1991 and its first major West Coast production at the Mark Taper Forum three years later, Eduardo Machado’s four-play cycle of Cuban and Cuban-exile histories, Floating Islands, underwent major revision.2 Of the four, the play that bore the most revision was the third, Fabiola. As a whole, Floating Islands recounts the story of three connected, extended, and eventually dispersed bourgeois Havana families, the Ripolls, the Hernándezes, and the Marquezes, beginning with the first family’s rise to economic and social prominence in 1920s Havana, and taking us to the marriages that connect the three families in the decades preceding the 1959 Revolution, to the Revolution and its aftermaths in Cuba (the setting of Fabiola), and finally to the ambivalent moment of the family’s exile “success” in 1980s suburban Woodland Hills, CA. The differences between the earlier published and later performed “versions” of Fabiola are considerable, and significant. In this first of four sections to this discussion, I will summarize the two versions; I then take up aspects of Fabiola, and of the Islands cycle that situate Machado’s work in relation to the vexed ideologies still (mis)directing Cuban familial, (trans) national, and diasporic histories; the theory and history of theatre, drama, and performance as they inform the plays; and the legacies of spirit, ritual and religion, still haunting Machado’s Cuban/American theatre.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.015 | 0.010 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".