MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3022133842 · doi:10.5817/cejcs2019-14-11

Bridging transcultural boundaries in Carroll Aikins's play The God of Gods: A Canadian Play

2019· article· en· W3022133842 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Krisztina Kodó

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Central European journal of Canadian studies · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicFolklore, Mythology, and Literature Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBridging (networking)SociologyTheologyHistoryAestheticsPhilosophyComputer scienceComputer security

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

What is a Canadian play? Does it have an established formula? Should a nation's culture and tradition provide inspiration for the kind of theatre it envisages as a national theatre? Canada is a transnational country that has incorporated the cultural identities of many different ethnicities from the beginning of its inception. Which cultural and traditional markers were considered to be more dominant and influential? The turn of the twentieth century and its first decades saw numerous endeavours in the form of modernist experimental theatres that challenged the traditional European theatrical formulas. Their aim was to create an all-Canadian theatre and perform the works of Canadian playwrights that present Canadian themes. To what extent were these aims achieved? Caroll Aikins's theatrical endeavours may be considered unique, because his play The God of Gods: A Canadian Play, bridges cultures through its "native" themes with its wilderness, spirituality and equality. The play dramatizes major theosophical beliefs that portray a critical view of human nature, namely, by focusing on materialism, religion and human greed. Aikins's modernist theatrical techniques and aboriginal subject matter, however, also highlight further underlying tenets that the article proposes to examine.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.809
Threshold uncertainty score0.757

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.023
GPT teacher head0.216
Teacher spread0.193 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
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

Citations0
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Central European journal of Canadian studiesSame topicFolklore, Mythology, and Literature StudiesFrench-language works237,207