Touring Shakespeare: The Stratford Festival, Cultural Funding, and Cultural Diplomacy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article examines three key tours of the Stratford Festival from 1967 to 1986. In 1967, the Festival undertook its first and only cross-Canada tour in celebration of the Centennial. In 1973, the Festival staged its most direct production of cultural diplomacy with a Department of External Affairs sponsored tour of Europe. The Festival also went on a substantial tour of the United States in the winter of 1985/1986 with support from External Affairs. During these moments when the company left Stratford to perform elsewhere, the theatre brought with it a performance not only of Shakespeare but also of purported Canadian culture, and was motivated by not only by a cultural agenda but also a commercial one. Drawing on archival records of the Festival’s tours and attempts to gain state funding, this article charts the Festival’s turn away from domestic national touring to international touring and the calculations, done by both the theatre and the state, of the value involved in prioritizing touring outside of Canada over touring the nation. Ultimately, touring Canada was expensive, and was not seen as giving the same return on investment in terms of nationalist prestige, cultural diplomacy, and the attraction of tourists. I argue that through a claim to Canadian national culture, the Stratford Festival attempted to secure state support, with commercial interests for the Festival and town of Stratford at stake.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.013 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
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".