A Difficult Birth: Bringing Staging Studies to the Pages of <i>Modern Drama</i>
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Within American theatre scholarship there is a long-standing tradition of a distinction between drama, which considers the play primarily as a literary text, and theatre, which focuses upon the play's realization on stage. The very title of the journal Modern Drama seemingly places it on the literary side of this division, and that has indeed been its primary orientation. From the very beginning, however, most notably in the including of regular reports on theatrical activity abroad, the journal showed an interest in performance as well as literary text. A much more distinct interest in performance appeared in the journal from the early 1980s onward, with a series of special issues on contemporary experimental work in the theatre. Oddly enough, however, despite a wide-ranging interest in the staging of such experimental theatre, the journal only very rarely offered essays discussing the staging of such canonical authors as Ibsen, Chekhov, Williams, and Strindberg, whose plays had been from the beginning the center of the journal's concerns. This rather odd disjuncture may in part be due to the fact that the professional theatre in the United States offers far fewer major revivals of such authors for study than do the world's other major theatre-producing countries or it may owe something to the long-standing assumption that “drama” refers only to plays as literature. Nevertheless, a number of recent essays in the journal, most notably one by the leading German theatre scholar, Erika Fischer-Lichte, suggest how the journal might more fully fulfill its mission by presenting more work in this important area, hitherto surprisingly unrepresented in its pages.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.011 | 0.033 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.017 | 0.022 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".