MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2283938656 · doi:10.3138/ctr.165.007

Equity and the Academy: A Survey of Theatre Productions at Canadian Post-Secondary Institutions

2016· article· en· W2283938656 on OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff
Nicholas Hanson, Alexa Elser

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Theatre Review · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicTheatre and Performance Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDramaGender equityEquity (law)The artsPolitical scienceSociologyPublic relationsManagementMedia studiesGender studiesVisual artsArtLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

On a periodic basis, reports from professional arts organizations as well as articles in the popular press scrutinize the inequitable rates of gender participation in the professional theatre landscape. But what about the school play, in particular at Canadian post-secondary institutions with drama and theatre programs? This article disseminates and analyzes empirical data about artistic programming at post-secondary institutions, with a specific focus on the gender ratio of playwrights. Nicholas Hanson and Alexa Elser collected information about mainstage theatre productions connected to forty-five English-language post-secondary institutions across Canada, spanning a period of three academic years: 2012/13, 2013/14, and 2014/15. Hanson and Elser’s research reveals that schools produce plays written by women even less frequently than professional theatres do. Arguing that a greater focus on gender equity in the academy offers the potential to implement substantive change, Hanson and Elser provide resources and recommendations to bolster the production of plays by women at post-secondary institutions.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.010
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.948
Threshold uncertainty score0.381

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.010
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0120.025
Science and technology studies0.0070.003
Scholarly communication0.0040.001
Open science0.0020.003
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.077
GPT teacher head0.286
Teacher spread0.209 · 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 designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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
Published2016
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Theatre ReviewSame topicTheatre and Performance StudiesFrench-language works237,207