MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2060275864 · doi:10.1386/padm.2.1.69/1

<i>Juliette at Zulu Time</i> : Robert Lepage and the aesthetics of ?techno-en-scene?

2006· article· en· W2060275864 on OpenAlex
Aleksandar Sasha Dundjerović

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Performance Arts and Digital Media · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicTheatre and Performance Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsZuluArtAestheticsVisual artsArt historyPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

AbstractJuliette at Zulu Time looks at how Robert Lepage's theatre communicates through form that is content, exploring the medium until he discovers something that has an echo in the audience. It also explores how changes in the social context politicize reception of the performance. The article analyses the use of multimedia in two of Robert Lepage's productions — Romeo and Juliette in Saskatchewan (1989) and Zulu Time (1999). Although Romeo and Juliette in Saskatchewan was a text-based production and Zulu Time a devised performance, and there is gap of more than ten years between the two productions, they share a similar use of creative vocabulary taken from different media. This paper explores ways in which these productions borrow and incorporate the language of other media-film, robotics and digital art — within their own performance mise-en-scene to create a techno-en-scene.

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.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.918
Threshold uncertainty score0.271

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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 head0.005
GPT teacher head0.181
Teacher spread0.176 · 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