L'interprétation du réel : Théâtres documentaires au Québec
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Le public quebecois manifeste aujourd’hui un engouement certain pour le theâtre documentaire. Mais il n’en a pas toujours ete ainsi. La rapidite avec laquelle cette esthetique s’est imposee depuis les annees 2000 est a la source de cet ouvrage collectif et en explique la forme : non pas celle d’une histoire qui reste a faire, mais celle d’un etoilement que les auteur·e·s de l’ouvrage apprehendent a partir de multiples perspectives. Sont regroupes sous l’appellation de « theâtres documentaires » une variete de createurs et de demarches que reunit l’idee d’interpretation du reel, a comprendre ici dans sa double acception de jeu avec la realite et de point de vue sur celle-ci. On cherchera donc a saisir le fonctionnement – tant sur le plan ethique et politique que dans sa dimension veritablement esthetique – des principales manifestations de ce mouvement au Quebec et a se demander a quels besoins repond cette predilection soudaine pour la factualite dans une vie theâtrale qui s’en etait tres bien passee jusque-la.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.024 | 0.013 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 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".