“A Dramaturgical Chimera”: Judith Thompson, Urjo Kareda, and the Politics of Playwright-Dramaturg Negotiations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Dans cet article, Jessica Riley part de recherches qu’elle a menées dans les archives pour explorer l’effet complexe que peuvent avoir le genre, le pouvoir et le privilège sur les négociations entre dramaturges et conseillers ou conseillères dramaturgiques. S’appuyant dans son analyse sur des documents qui portent sur le travail dramaturgique sur la pièce White Biting Dog de Judith Thompson, Riley souligne des révisions importantes apportées par la dramaturge en réponse aux commentaires et aux questions de son conseiller dramaturgique, Urjo Kareda. En mettant au jour les dynamiques de pouvoir et de résistance axées sur le genre dans ces négociations, Riley montre la résilience et la capacité d’agir de Thompson tout en reconnaissant que tous les dramaturges ne sont pas en mesure de réagir au contrôle dramaturgique comme Thompson l’a fait, au bénéfice de sa pièce et de sa carrière.
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 | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.038 | 0.038 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".