MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2894682645 · doi:10.7202/1051071ar

Twice Have the Trumpets Sounded

2018· article· en· W2894682645 on OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff
Marvin Carlson

Bibliographic record

VenueRecherches sémiotiques · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicVisual Culture and Art Theory
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSemioticsVisual artsSign (mathematics)SightDanceArtLiminalityEveryday lifeAestheticsHistorySociologyLinguisticsLawPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Probably no single aspect of the semiotics of performance is more critical than the conventionalized signals that inform the audience that they are entering or leaving the liminal world of performance, and that the signs they will receive between these two signals are to be interpreted not necessarily as they would be in everyday life, but according to the codes of the performance situation. A clear example of one familiar modern sign for the ending of the performance is, of course, the curtain call. Throughout the history of theatre, the ending of the performance has most commonly been signaled by visual means – the curtain call, the bringing up of the house lights, the lowering of the house curtain, the general dance of the performers. When we consider the various means by which the beginning of a performance is indicated, however, we find that a significant number of them are in fact not visual but sonic – the first, second and third music in Restoration theatre, the trumpet fanfares at Stratford (Ontario) the “trois coups” of the traditional French theatre, the traditional playing of “God Save the Queen” in British theatres, and Ellen Stewart’s ringing of the hand bell for years at La Mama. In certain cases, the semiotics of sound have been prioritized over those of sight for the sake of summoning audiences, but most often they are already assembled and so other dynamics are at work. This essay will consider some of the most important uses of sound in this particular semiotic function, that is, as a signal for the audience to experience various theatrical works with a performance-oriented consciousness.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.011
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 score0.037
Threshold uncertainty score0.125

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.011
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0090.009
Scholarly communication0.0090.007
Open science0.0010.005
Research integrity0.0030.007
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0370.014

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 head0.210
GPT teacher head0.358
Teacher spread0.148 · 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

Citations4
Published2018
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRecherches sémiotiquesSame topicVisual Culture and Art TheoryFrench-language works237,207