MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3183903492 · doi:10.3138/ctr.187.002

Breaking Ground

2021· article· en· W3183903492 on OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff
Chris Dupuis

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Theatre Review · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicTheatre and Performance Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEvent (particle physics)LotteryPerformance artVisual artsSpace (punctuation)HistoryArt historyMedia studiesArtSociologyComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This text is an interview by Chris Dupuis with Benj Gallander, Greg Holmgren, Robert Sherwood, Ben Stadelmann, and Carol Pauker, the founders of the SummerWorks Festival. The team first assembled after being unable to secure slots at the Toronto Fringe Festival, with the idea of starting an alternative summer theatre event that would offer space to artists unable to get into the Fringe. They discuss the first conversations around launching the event through its early years, including the challenges of starting from scratch and running the project collectively and the various triumphs and failures they experienced. They outline changes in the selection process, the move from a first come, first served, model to a lottery system similar to the Fringe, and the gradual introduction of curation through the Parallel Lab initiative. Finally, they discuss how the festival shaped them personally and the event’s lasting impacts on the Toronto theatre sector. The text also includes references the late eighties Toronto theatre scene, including Tomson Highway, Hillar Littoja, and Buddies in Bad Times.

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.015
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: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.152
Threshold uncertainty score0.507

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.015
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0110.012
Scholarly communication0.0120.010
Open science0.0030.011
Research integrity0.0030.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.1520.036

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 head0.035
GPT teacher head0.241
Teacher spread0.206 · 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
GenreOther

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 routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Theatre ReviewSame topicTheatre and Performance StudiesFrench-language works237,207