MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2065579970 · doi:10.1353/ctr.2011.0007

Before we get into the event—I would like to hear from you in what way you think that my love affected you : (verbatim fragments on memory and loss—from a piece that I have been working on my whole adult life and may never write)

2011· article· en· W2065579970 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Marcus Youssef

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Theatre Review · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicMemory, Trauma, and Commemoration
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNarrativeConstruct (python library)BattleDramaFace (sociological concept)Rite of passagePsychologyAestheticsLiteratureHistoryPsychoanalysisSociologyArtComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Throughout his mother’s decade-long battle with early onset Alzheimer’s disease, Marcus Youssef has used multiple narrative forms to document his experience of his mother’s illness. Using examples of his own writing about her Alzheimer’s, as well as the writing his mother did as the disease took hold, Youssef examines the ways in which his own attempts to construct performance narratives out of the disease’s impact seem remarkably similar to his mother’s own attempts to preserve a sense of narrative (or “self”) in the face of the steady erasure of her memory. Taken together, these fragments of essay, drama, journal and radio broadcast make a kind of patchwork and subjective memory document that catalogues one example of this emerging cultural rite of passage. It also poses fundamental questions about the relationship of narrative to self, and memory’s complicated and elusive role in the formation of both.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.229
Threshold uncertainty score0.455

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0070.007
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0120.002

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 head0.039
GPT teacher head0.274
Teacher spread0.235 · 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 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

Citations0
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Theatre ReviewSame topicMemory, Trauma, and CommemorationFrench-language works237,207