Bibliographic record
Abstract
In its promotional material the city of Toronto regularly makes two significant claims: to be the world’s most multicultural city, and to be the third most active theatre center in the English-speaking world. This chapter looks at the relationships between these claims, and positions theatrical activity within the city in relation to Canada’s official multicultural policy. It articulates multicultural texts – the policies, documents, and official discourses of Canadian multiculturalism – against intercultural performance – the complex ecology of grassroots interculturalism that plays itself out among the many intercultural theatre companies within the city who attempt to construct culturally alternative communities and solidarities across difference. This text versus performance binary, of course, problematically imitates understandings of dramatic scripts as ‘texts’ that are, or fail to be, ‘realized’ in performance, but I hope to complicate that relationship in three ways. First, I read the city’s performance of the official multicultural script 1 through the work of W. B. Worthen and Robert Weimann, understanding the relationship between text and performance as mutually constitutive. For multiculturalism, as for a dramatic text, ‘performance is not determined by the text [...]: it strikes a much more interactive, performative relation between writing and the spaces, places, and behaviors that give it meaning’ (Worthen: 12). Intercultural performance in Toronto operates in relation to multicultural text as ‘a formative force, as an institutionalized power in itself, as a cultural practice in its own right’ (Weimann: 4–5), and one that performs official multiculturalism in ways that are independently generative, instantiating the text in ways that constitute its social effect. A second way in which I complicate the text/performance binary is to read the grassroots performance of the intercultural city as heterotopic
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.046 | 0.039 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.021 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.012 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.024 | 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".