Sarah Bernhardt à London Ontario (1896, 1910): contextes de sa réception
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Sarah Bernhardt a fait plusieurs tournées nord-américaines qui incluent deux passages à London Ontario (des plaques commémoratives l’indiquent à l’entrée du Grand Théâtre, rue Richmond, ce qui avait fortement intrigué les deux chercheuses adeptes de théâtre). Il s’agit ici d’étudier non seulement la réception enregistrée ou initiée par les journalistes contemporains de ces spectacles (ce qui a été fait) mais d’estimer quel était le degré de francophilie des spectateurs, ce qui pouvait les motiver à aller voir ces spectacles (par exemple, par comparaison à ceux qu’ils recevaient ensuite ou qui enthousiasmaient les hommes d’Église locaux qui avaient plutôt tendance à censurer le théâtre—et les raisons de leur censure), et quel était l’état d’urbanisme et de développement culturel (les lieux du spectacle) conditionnant sa réception, les divisions et périphéries racialisées de la société des colons.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.035 | 0.018 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.014 | 0.002 |
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".