MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2032429966 · doi:10.3138/ctr.156.009

Archival Collaborations: Using Theatre Archives to Teach Canadian Theatre History and Archival Literacy

2013· article· en· W2032429966 on OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff
Roberta Barker, Creighton Barrett, Doyle Lahey

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Theatre Review · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicDigital and Traditional Archives Management
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsArchival scienceLibrary scienceSociologyComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

How can theatre archives be effectively utilized to teach about theatre? What opportunities do they pose for teaching in other disciplines? What considerations must archives staff make when providing access to theatre archives? This article aims to address such questions by providing an overview of an ongoing collaboration at Dalhousie University. For the past several years, the Dalhousie University Archives has collaborated with Dr. Roberta Barker of the Dalhousie Theatre Department on a course project in which students research production records from the Neptune Theatre fonds. This article outlines the pedagogical goals of the assignment and touches upon the challenges associated with using theatre archives to facilitate undergraduate learning and teaching. It also looks at another recent course project that used Neptune Theatre’s archives to teach core archival concepts to graduate students in the Dalhousie School of Information Management. In the process, it considers how the unique characteristics of theatre archives can enable multidisciplinary collaborations between archivists and university faculty.

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)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.115
Threshold uncertainty score0.457

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.005
Science and technology studies0.0150.007
Scholarly communication0.0060.002
Open science0.0020.004
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.000

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 head0.031
GPT teacher head0.221
Teacher spread0.190 · 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 designQualitative
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

Citations3
Published2013
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Theatre ReviewSame topicDigital and Traditional Archives ManagementFrench-language works237,207