MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2302218369 · doi:10.14288/1.0066395

The Electric Company script development process : "Brilliant! The Blinding Englightenment of Nikola Tesla"

2008· article· en· W2302218369 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
M. Kneale

Bibliographic record

VenuecIRcle (University of British Columbia) · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicResearch, Science, and Academia
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBlindingProcess (computing)Computer scienceBusinessManufacturing engineeringEngineeringMedicineOperating systemSurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Ensemble creation in Canada is a popular form of script development. It began essentially in the 1970’s with The Farm Show, and has become the site for much theoretical and critical discussion. The Electric Company Theatre began as an ensemble in 1996 and since then has created fascinating productions with a range of topics in both site specific and touring venues. Brilliant! The Blinding Enlightenment of Nikola Tesla was a cornerstone piece for this group and existed in a number of incarnations before the script was eventually published in 2004 and the production toured again in 2006. This thesis examines how the Electric Company Theatre developed material for performance as an ensemble. I also discuss how the Electrics were influenced by the various resources they used in order to generate text and imagery for the production. Through these discussions, I argue that the collective creation product has a direct influence on the process. My research has mostly been conducted through interviews with company members, through research of their production history and script.

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.062
Threshold uncertainty score0.123

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0070.006
Scholarly communication0.0050.002
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0100.002

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 head0.053
GPT teacher head0.272
Teacher spread0.218 · 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
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuecIRcle (University of British Columbia)Same topicResearch, Science, and AcademiaFrench-language works237,207