MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1976366199 · doi:10.3138/ctr.161.010

Human Rights (and Their Appearances) in Performing Arts Festivals

2015· article· en· W1976366199 on OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff
Keren Zaiontz

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Theatre Review · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicPublic Spaces through Art
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPoliticsDowntownThe artsMedia studiesDissentShot (pellet)AppealPolitical scienceVisual artsSociologyHistoryLawArt

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article opens by examining Super Night Shot, a performance devised by the Berlin-Nottingham group Gob Squad that was produced at three arts festivals across Canada in 2014. It looks specifically at Super Night Shot’s performance in the PuSh Festival’s tenth-anniversary gala and examines the appeal that Gob Squad’s comic brand of art activism holds for festivals. In recent years the political dissent expressed on fringe and festival stages in Canada has often met with backdoor censorship through the defunding of grants by the Department of Canadian Heritage. The Montreal-based group ATSA has experienced this first-hand through Canadian Heritage’s defunding of their “manifestival,” État d’Urgence. (The decision to withdraw funding happened on the eve of ATSA’s 2010 festival.) The article compares the art-activist tactics used in both Super Night Shot and État d’Urgence and proposes that in a climate of silencing by disinvestment it may be safer to program the appearance of dissent rather than a concrete manifestation of it. It concludes by examining a small-scale version of État d’Urgence staged in Vancouver’s Downtown Eastside, The Pigeon’s Club (2011), and argues for the importance of face-to-face encounters in the public square that challenge citizens to take social and political responsibility for one another.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.955
Threshold uncertainty score0.515

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.055
GPT teacher head0.329
Teacher spread0.274 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations4
Published2015
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Theatre ReviewSame topicPublic Spaces through ArtFrench-language works237,207