MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1974993534 · doi:10.3138/ctr.154.004

Linking Who We Are and Where We Are: Saskatchewan’s Legacy of Community and Site-oriented Performance

2013· article· en· W1974993534 on OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff
Marnie Badham, Kathleen Irwin, Rachael Van Fossen

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Theatre Review · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicArtistic and Creative Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAnachronismMeaning (existential)SociologyContext (archaeology)PerceptionThe artsAestheticsGeographyVisual artsArtArchaeologyPoliticsPsychologyPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In Saskatchewan, Common Weal Community Arts, born in the 1990s under Rachael Van Fossen and subsequently led by Marnie Badham, used the community event to promote social and cultural understanding between diverse communities in rural and urban settings to promote social change. Since 2002, Knowhere Productions Inc. has used site and community to investigate physical and conceptual space through large-scale performances that explore the relationship between people, memories, landscape and the anachronism of performing one’s place in the world in the age of hyperconnectivity. Through collaborative and non-matrixed performances, both companies address the meaning(s) of belonging by amplifying the multiplicity of voices from certain places and cultures across rural / urban differentiations through new media and innovative processes. This article explores aesthetic and communal practices within a socio-historic context and grounded in a perception of the land as a potent and persistent actant in place making and playmaking.

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)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.065
Threshold uncertainty score0.473

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.008
Science and technology studies0.0140.015
Scholarly communication0.0110.003
Open science0.0030.007
Research integrity0.0010.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.037
GPT teacher head0.254
Teacher spread0.217 · 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 designNot applicable
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
Published2013
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Theatre ReviewSame topicArtistic and Creative ResearchFrench-language works237,207