MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2507928950 · doi:10.3138/ctr.167.013

The Money Tree

2016· article· en· W2507928950 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Robert S. Watson

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Theatre Review · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicHousing, Finance, and Neoliberalism
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCreativityWatsonFinancial literacyValue (mathematics)Power (physics)Art historyManagementLiteracyVisual artsArtHistoryLawBusinessPolitical scienceEconomicsFinanceComputer scienceArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

When Shasta’s father loses his job, she is devastated to learn that previously laid plans for her upcoming birthday party must be significantly downsized. As the story progresses, Shasta and Simon meet a mysterious Traveller who gives them a seed that will make a tree grow leaves of money. Through a truly magical journey, the two ultimately learn that being a loyal friend is worth more than a big party or having all the latest toys. In the end, our friends, families, and imaginations are truly our greatest assets. The Money Tree introduces elementary audiences to financial literacy and value, exploring the idea of “needs versus wants” and affirming the power of imagination and creativity. Roseneath Theatre (roseneath.ca) premiered The Money Tree in the fall of 2014 to coincide with Financial Literacy Month in November, and the production was directed by Artistic Director Andrew Lamb. The Money Tree was nominated for two 2015 Dora Mavor Moore Awards: Outstanding New Play—Robert Watson, and Outstanding Ensemble Performance—Joshua Stodart, Rong Fu, and Heather Marie Annis.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
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: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.367
Threshold uncertainty score0.730

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0030.004
Scholarly communication0.0050.003
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0280.005

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.

Opus teacher head0.027
GPT teacher head0.214
Teacher spread0.187 · 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
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 routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Theatre Review→Same topicHousing, Finance, and Neoliberalism→French-language works237,207→