MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W307494080

Writing and Rewriting: National Theatre Histories

2005· article· en· W307494080 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueAustralasian drama studies · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicTheatre and Performance Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsVariety (cybernetics)Object (grammar)ContradictionHistoryHistoriographyFace (sociological concept)National historyFlexibility (engineering)Media studiesGenealogySociologySocial sciencePolitical sciencePoliticsComputer scienceLawArchaeologyLinguisticsManagement
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

S. E. Wilmer, ed., Writing and Rewriting: National Theatre Histories (Iowa City: University of Iowa Press, 2004) Defining 'national' theatre history involves the related and formidable tasks of identifying what is to be understood as 'nation'; what range of performance forms are to be included as 'theatre'; and the mutating outlines of historically specific nationalisms presently and formerly current in various locations. Undertaking the inscription of national histories of theatre thus involves astuteness and flexibility in the face of its many methodological challenges. The field is defined, along with some specific solutions, in Wilmer's stimulating and useful collection of essays in the series 'Studies in Theatre History and Culture' from University of Iowa Press. Wilmer summarises these common problematics in his essay 'On Writing National Theatre Histories': basically, whether to define one's object of study through geography, language, ethnicity or aesthetics. The contributors write on a selected range of 'national' regions spread over Europe and North America, with South Africa and Indonesia venturing south of the equator. This sampling produces sufficient variety of historical circumstances and heterogeneity of performance forms to pursue a complex host of problematics and productive examples. Although the focus of the collection is on techniques and philosophies of historiography, some of the contributions largely ignore this topic and produce instead accounts of theatre history in specific regions. The individual essays speak from the collection in a polyphonic dialogue, sometimes reaching each other and sometimes left in intriguing open contradiction. In the fortunes of the national theatre history, present options appears poised between the grand synoptic narratives of the late nineteenth century and the more pluralist, targeted and problem-based essay format of the later twentieth century. The latter typically seek to link local events, dramaturgy, structures and personnel with similar or identical manifestations across the fragile 'national' borders which theatre - that most cosmopolitan and promiscuously mutating of cultural forms - has ever largely ignored. One of the many valuable provocations to be identified in this richly argued collection is whether the moment may be at hand for a cautious, post-Hayden White rapprochement with the large-scale narrative. Erika Fischer-Lichte, in an initial essay 'Some Critical Remarks on Theatre Historiography', declares that the 'totalising and Ideologically oriented constructions of history have long since become obsolete' (4) and denounces most synoptic histories as suffering from an overdose of fact-laden historicism. Partial, problem-oriented studies are offered as the optimal way of organising the masses of empirical material typical of theatrical studies. On the other hand, Bruce McConachie's chapter 'Narrative Possibilities for US Theatre Histories' discerns that the strategic and contextualised explorations of the essay approach need to be reintegrated with the historian's fundamental technique of narrative. It will, of course, be a narrative highly critical of 'the Herderian tradition of culturalist historiography' whose features are 'the search for origins, the claim of essential identity, and the ethical relativism of the volksgeist orientation' (141). Alan Filewod, while highly suspicious of the notion of 'national' stories which too frequently are 'not about Canadian theatre at all but rather about the genealogies of performance that have legitimized changing ideological projects of nationhood' (108), still mounts a strong case for the retention of nation as a useful organising category. Theatre as art form and institution 'operates in fields of cultural formation and policy that are formed by national experience and legislated by national states' (123). Purged of such standard cultural-nationalist assumptions as ethnic or linguistic privilege, aesthetic hierarchising, boosting of the literary over the popular or the professional over the amateur, mythologies of origin, phobias about contamination by the foreign or the commercial, or the effacing of indigeneity and internal cultural differences, the national theatre history can still offer a credible vehicle for locating specific cultural phenomena while mapping international transactions. …

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.

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)0.000
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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.762
Threshold uncertainty score0.799

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.050
GPT teacher head0.288
Teacher spread0.238 · 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