Bibliographic record
Abstract
Les EssifWhile I've never had the opportunity to become personally acquainted with John Gronbeck-Tedesco, I know I speak for a mass of scholars, teachers, and practitioners whose lives he has touched and whose condition he has improved.So I'd like to recount my experience of the publication of an article in JDTC, an essay that forged the cornerstone of my first book (Empty Figure on an Empty Stage) and an experience that really bolstered my confidence and helped launch and orient my scholarly career.My connection with John and the journal began when, as a graduate student, I attended a talk he presented on the topic of publishing in the field.His remarks really stuck with me, especially those emphasizing the need to seriously consider unconventional, alternative topics and approaches to theatre research and to inform close textual analysis with a variety of critical and creative writings.Subsequently, in the late 1980s, I spent much of my dissertation-writing time and the first year of my postdoctoral work in France.In 1992, as a freshly minted assistant professor looking to place a major article using an unorthodox approach to Beckett's empty theatrical space (in accordance with John's encouragement to be original), I was not as familiar with American theatre-drama-performance scholarship-including professional journals-as I would've liked to be.It took me some time to identify the most suitable (top) journals for my article.After receiving cursory and unhelpful rejection letters from two of these, I only slightly revised the essay and sent it to JDTC.In short, this submission experience was successful, not only because the essay was accepted but also for the feedback and encouragement I received.I had the feeling that, true to the journal's editorial statement, the JDTC editors and readers were genuinely more open to less mainstream ideas, arguments, and critical approaches.As proof of the controversial nature of my article, following its appearance several fellow scholars around the U.S. sent me emails taking a stand more or less for or against the critical approach I had elaborated.Several other colleagues approached me at professional conferences to discuss the issue.One in particular made a special effort in this regard and followed up our conference discussion and email exchange by publishing an essay in JDTC which respectfully, overtly, and methodically challenged the utility of my critical approach.I knew the objections raised were representative of a larger body of scholars, so the timely appearance of Les Essif, professor of French studies at the University of Tennessee, has recently published The French Play: Exploring Theatre "Re-creatively" with Foreign Language Students (U of Calgary P, 2006).
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 | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.010 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.023 | 0.005 |
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".