MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W284048759 · doi:10.1353/mos.2017.a650695

“Bodily Charm”: An Interview with Linda Hutcheon and Michael Hutcheon

2017· article· en· W284048759 on OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff
Linda Hutcheon, Michael Hutcheon, Dawne McCance

Bibliographic record

VenueMosaic · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicArt, Technology, and Culture
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsOperaArt historyGazeCharm (quantum number)ArtVisual artsCognitive sciencePsychologyPsychoanalysis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

On 31 March 2001 at the Fort Garry Hotel in Winnipeg, Linda Hutcheon (LH) and Michael Hutcheon (MH) delivered the Sidney Warhaft Memorial Lecture “Staging the Visual Arts: The Operatic Gaze.” On the occasion of the Warhaft Lecture, Dawne McCance (DM) conducted an inter(re)view with the Hutcheons on their book Bodily Charm: Living Opera. This interview was originally published in the June 2002 issue of Mosaic (35.2)

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.010
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 score0.362
Threshold uncertainty score0.719

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.010
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0410.014
Scholarly communication0.0070.006
Open science0.0020.006
Research integrity0.0070.016
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0110.001

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 head0.042
GPT teacher head0.253
Teacher spread0.212 · 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

Citations1
Published2017
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMosaicSame topicArt, Technology, and CultureFrench-language works237,207