MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2036938099 · doi:10.3138/ctr.154.010

Playwriting in the New Saskatchewan: A Round-table Discussion That Didn’t Really Happen

2013· article· en· W2036938099 on OpenAlexfundvenueaboutno aff
Kelley Jo Burke

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Theatre Review · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicCanadian Identity and History
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersUniversity of Alberta
KeywordsCraftNothingPerformance artSection (typography)HistoryVisual artsArtMedia studiesArt historySociologyAdvertisingPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Almost twenty years ago, while visiting Toronto, writer Kelley Jo Burke was asked, in essence, What was she thinking, living in the middle of nothing, and as far as humanly possible from any significant theatrical something? According to the wisdom of the (Toronto) time, Saskatchewan, with its paltry number of stages, tiny theatrical community, and rural sensibilities, was no place for an ambitious playwright to ply her craft. In a Canada where suddenly Saskatchewan is an economic star, is Saskatchewan still a place that playwrights have to leave, to succeed? And if so, why do so many stay? In this article, a cross section of current and future Saskatchewan playwrights discuss playwriting in the “New Saskatchewan” and look at what has changed and what remains the same.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.357
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.247
Teacher spread0.229 · 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.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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

Citations1
Published2013
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Theatre ReviewSame topicCanadian Identity and HistoryFrench-language works237,207