MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2746888821 · doi:10.3138/ctr.171.007

Good Pain and Bad Pain: Talking About Writing Musicals (in Canada)

2017· article· en· W2746888821 on OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff
Colleen Dauncey, Anika Johnson, Britta Johnson, Barb Johnston

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Theatre Review · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicTheater, Performance, and Music History
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCraftGrassrootsMusicalDanceVisual artsArtSociologyAestheticsPolitical scienceLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this article, Canadian Theatre Review interviews Canadian musical theatre writers Anika Johnson, Barbara Johnston, Britta Johnson, and Colleen Dauncey about their work. They share their thoughts on the craft of writing for the musical theatre, the importance of Fringe Festivals in developing new musicals at the grassroots level, the challenges of integrating dance into an already resource-starved development process, and how being young women shapes their approach to writing.

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)0.010
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.034
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 score0.082
Threshold uncertainty score0.598

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0100.034
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0060.015
Science and technology studies0.0100.009
Scholarly communication0.0130.003
Open science0.0030.003
Research integrity0.0030.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.209
Teacher spread0.190 · 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
Published2017
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Theatre ReviewSame topicTheater, Performance, and Music HistoryFrench-language works237,207