The Critical "Gap of the North": Nationalism, National Theatre, and the North
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Theatre history is suffused by an immanent sense of loss. for it is forever haunted by the spectral presence of past performance as the liveness of theatre can never be recuperated or represented, but remains absent and ineffable, beyond the positivist purview of its written wor(l)d. Nevertheless, for theatre historians, reviews and criticism are never merely material ephemera that recall the lost evanescence of live performance, but vital artefacts that assist their imperfect efforts to empirically and imaginatively reconstruct the theatrical past. Certainly, my own research on the Ulster Literary Theatre (ULT), a much-neglected dramatic movement. is largely dependent on such traces of the theatrical event, especially as many of the ULT's texts were never published. Indeed, fifty years ago, a historian researching the same subject reflected that all that remained of some plays was "a fugitive line in the memory of the players" (see Kennedy). Often, reviews are the only historical residue that remains of their work and they provide tantalising textual traces of plots, performances, scenography, action, and responses to plays that would otherwise have disappeared completely. Of course, whilst theatre scholars, in particular, must always be wary of wholly positivist approaches to the theatrical past, reviews do remind us of another crucial fact: that performances, and their reception, are always local phenomena, and with regards to this, they can partially help us map the local contours of the "human geographies" that affect and inflect the production and reception of 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 | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.017 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".