Bibliographic record
Abstract
Speaking in advance of the Montréal performances of his Cycle Shakespeare , staged at international venues between 1992 and 1994, Robert Lepage described the tour stop in his home province as a response to the double colonization that Québec has historically experienced within Canada. Explaining that, in an effort to defend French culture, Québécois theatres have traditionally staged Molière and Racine more frequently than Shakespeare, Lepage remarked, ‘Shakespeare, jusqu’à présent, était réservé au Canada anglophone. Il nous était toujours présenté comme un auteur de luxe que l'on pouvait lire mais pas monter’ [Shakespeare, until now, has been reserved for Anglophone Canada. He has always been presented to us as a de luxe author who can be read but not staged]. As he would later relate, his solution to this situation, in which loyalty to one former colonial power compounds the inequalities caused by obedience to another, was to redeploy Shakespeare as a product of transnational culture. He believed that, by including performances at Montréal's Festival de Théâtre des Amériques (FTA) in the Cycle tour, he was allowing ‘the French-speaking public [to] discover a repertoire that it virtually never gets to see’, and thus he could bring global culture to Québec through Shakespeare. At the same time, by touring the Cycle – comprised of Coriolan , Macbeth and La Tempête – to numerous countries, he implicitly validated an outward-looking image of Québec while incidentally helping to ensure the viability of international Shakespeare theatre. The tone of Lepage's comments actually seem, politically, rather moderate, considering that the Cycle 's two-year tour overlapped with the highly charged political events of the early 1990s, events that harked back to Québec's nationalist movement of the 1970s in their divisive effect on Canadian federalism. In October 1992, shortly after the Paris run of the Cycle , Canadians voted in a bitterly debated referendum, rejecting the national government's Charlottetown Accord, which would have enshrined in the Constitution Québec's status as a distinct society within Canada. The following autumn, at the mid-point between the Montréal Cycle performances and the Québec City tour stop, the Bloc Québécois party, newly formed to defend Québec's interests, became the official opposition in Parliament, sitting across the floor from Prime Minister Jean Chrétien, a man disliked by many Québécois for his strong centralizing approach to federalism. Within two years, Canada seemed poised to come apart: in September 1994, Québec's provincial government promised to hold a referendum on negotiating sovereignty from Canada; one year later, Québec voters turned down this proposal by a margin of only 1 per cent.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.020 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.031 | 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".