MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W3156813968 · doi:10.3138/ctr.186.004

Come to My Garbage Show!: Semiotics and Audience Development for <i>Wastelands</i>

2021· article· en· W3156813968 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Savanna Harvey

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Theatre Review · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicTheatre and Performance Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSemioticsAudience receptionSociologyFace (sociological concept)Media studiesTheatre studiesDiscoverabilitySocial semioticsAestheticsTerminologyVisual artsLinguisticsArtSocial scienceDramaComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

When working on audience development for her ecotheatre show, Wastelands, Savanna Harvey was provided the opportunity to reflect on the limitations of the word ‘theatre.’ In an analysis founded in reader-response theory, social justice, semiotics, lived experience, and digital strategy, this article challenges the contemporary linguistic utility of the word ‘theatre.’ To bring her analysis outside of theory and into practice, Harvey demonstrates how this communications gap impacts audience development. She delineates how the linguistic limitations of the word ‘theatre’ could negatively impact face-to-face interactions, marketing materials and copywriting, and digital discoverability. When producing a piece of theatre for the environment or other justice-driven causes, the urgency of the call to action should take precedence over any nostalgia or sensibility attached to the word ‘theatre.’ To this end, Harvey suggests applying a more accessible and liminal terminology, one that carries less historical baggage, bypassing barriers to audience engagement for certain audience members.

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)0.013
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.855
Threshold uncertainty score0.288

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0130.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0050.004
Science and technology studies0.0090.039
Scholarly communication0.0140.006
Open science0.0020.006
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.033
GPT teacher head0.241
Teacher spread0.208 · 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

Citations0
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Theatre Review→Same topicTheatre and Performance Studies→French-language works237,207→