Re-Thinking My Assumptions: Archival Research and the Writing of <i>Our Kind of Work</i>
Bibliographic record
Abstract
While researching background material for Our Kind of Work (Thistledown 2011), a book about the first decade of Saskatoon’s Twenty-fifth Street Theatre, I found myself re-thinking long held assumptions about the theatre company and the theatre community in Saskatchewan. My expectation was that the theatre company had an amicable relationship with the Saskatchewan Arts Board through the company’s early years. Twenty-fifth Street Theatre was, after all, the only professional theatre company in the province dedicated to producing Canadian plays, and the Arts Board was there to foster the growth of Saskatchewan’s artistic scene. The relationship between the theatre company and the Arts Board was less than friendly, however, as is shown in several archival documents. I also assumed that the fledgling theatre company would find an ally in the local newspaper The Saskatoon Star-Phoenix, but the relationship was again unfriendly. Animosity between the theatre company and the newspaper culminated in a tense letter to a local reviewer which called for a public debate on the merits of one of the theatre company’s productions. My archival research, performed in the Twenty-fifth Street Theatre Collection at the University of Saskatchewan Archives, taught me that my knowledge of the theatre’s inner workings and of its relationships with other entities was far from complete.
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 | 0.126 | 0.202 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.011 | 0.013 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.052 | 0.146 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.066 | 0.045 |
| Open science | 0.009 | 0.024 |
| Research integrity | 0.008 | 0.031 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.002 |
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".