MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2040557562 · doi:10.1017/s0040557403000103

Setting the Stage for Revolution: The Efficacy of Czech Theatre, 1975–1989

2003· article· en· W2040557562 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Dennis C. Beck

Bibliographic record

VenueTheatre Survey · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicTheatre and Performance Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFaithCatechismPoliticsPatienceIdealismAffect (linguistics)PortraitHistoryAestheticsReligious studiesArtSociologyArt historyTheologyPhilosophyPolitical scienceLawEpistemology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

To affect audiences, to inspire them to consider something new or to consider something old in a new way, to move them emotionally or, as Lee Breuer says, “from one place to another,” is a common, if not inherent goal of those who make theatre.Frederic Ohringer, A Portrait of the Theatre (Toronto: Merritt, 1979), 58. More deeply, some want the movement they affect to endure, to transform something in people. Belief in the possibility of such movement implies another, having political implications, for if an individual can be moved, then a mass of individuals can be shifted; and if a mass of individuals choose to act on such a shift, or if their acts are inflected by such a shift, then events are altered and history made. Here lies the catechism of someone with the faith of an Augusto Boal that “perhaps the theater is not revolutionary in itself, but it is surely a rehearsal for revolution.”Augusto Boal, Theatre of the Oppressed, trans. Charles A. McBride and Maria-Odelia Leal McBride (New York: Theatre Communications Group, 1985), 122. And yet, in the United States and much of the West, how often are such professions of faith viewed as mere idealism or transformed, even by the converted, into faith’s safe sister, hope—which is to say, a lack of faith?

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)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.014
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 score0.097
Threshold uncertainty score0.230

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.014
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0180.013
Scholarly communication0.0090.005
Open science0.0010.006
Research integrity0.0020.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.001

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 head0.050
GPT teacher head0.269
Teacher spread0.219 · 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

Citations0
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTheatre SurveySame topicTheatre and Performance StudiesFrench-language works237,207