Bibliographic record
Abstract
Gender parity in Canadian theatre is an important issue that requires immediate and critical action. But any discussion, initiative, or action about gender parity cannot be considered separately and in isolation from racial parity and representation. Thus, it is an unfortunate reality that while it admittedly sucks to be a white female actor, director, designer, or playwright, it is six times harder to be a theatre artist of colour, regardless of gender. Theatre is about telling stories, yet Canadian theatremakers continue to tell what is basically the same story from the same perspective: the story of how white men either dominate or perceive the world. Most of what we see on Canadian stages is little more than a variation on this theme. The danger of the single story is that we fail to see the possibility of other stories that have been ignored or erased from history because they were deemed unimportant or uninteresting by the dominant demographic who recorded that history. After all, it’s called his-story for a reason. Unless we recognize and address the white affirmative action and sexism embedded in our systems, the danger is that Canadian theatre will become even more irrelevant to our ever-increasing visible majority.
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 | 0.031 | 0.104 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.021 | 0.023 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.019 | 0.024 |
| Open science | 0.007 | 0.012 |
| Research integrity | 0.008 | 0.019 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 0.002 |
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.
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".