Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract On 31 January 2010, during the broadcast of the 52 nd Grammy awards, the multiple-prize-winning vocal artist Pink offered a performance of the hit single Glitter in the Air that stunned many viewers. Spectators present in Los Angeles’s Staples Center, along with those watching via electronic media that reached some 26 million people through television in the United States alone, were both thrilled and astonished. ‘C’est la Québécisation de l’industrie!’, commented one excited observer. This paper attempts to unpack this observation and its celebration of a Québécois influence on, even signs of Québec itself in, the international performance industry. Through an exploration of certain genealogies associated with both the art and the artists and an examination of certain moments in the development of the circus arts in Québec, the article notes real traces of Québécois cultural productions appearing in international performance spaces. As it turns to offer a critical gaze onto the very celebration of this perception of a Québec in the popular cultural industry, these pages close on a proposed way of understanding how these performances may ultimately help create and maintain a Québécois identity for their viewers.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.016 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.017 | 0.001 |
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.
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".