MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W3186656527 · doi:10.3138/ctr.187.007

<i>Is Dearth a Little or a Lot?</i>

2021· article· en· W3186656527 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Amelia Ehrhardt, J. Cheever Goodwin, Cathy Gordon

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Theatre Review · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicDiversity and Impact of Dance
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDanceContext (archaeology)Visual artsPerspective (graphical)Style (visual arts)ArtChoreographyMovement (music)BalletSociologyAestheticsHistory

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In the format of an interpolated Zoom transcript, former SummerWorks Curators Amelia Ehrhardt, Jenn Goodwin, and Cathy Gordon discuss the disciplining and undisciplining of SummerWorks Performance Festival between 2015 and 2019. The authors came to SummerWorks as specific curators of the dance and live-art streams and watched the festival grow from being a theatre-focused festival known to invite other art forms to a performance festival focused on a multidisciplinary perspective. Ehrhardt, Goodwin, and Gordon discuss the festival’s transition and specific works that exemplified their curatorial lenses-Ehrhardt and Goodwin from dance and Gordon from live art. "Is Dearth a Little or a Lot?" reads conversationally with an editorial voice interrogating the transcript, checking facts, or chiming in with context like a pop-up-video-style literary device. The authors question the function and outcome of creating discipline-specific streams for artists, audiences, and the structure of the festival and discuss hopes for the future of an undisciplined festival.

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)0.018
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: Commentary · Consensus signal: Commentary
Teacher disagreement score0.260
Threshold uncertainty score0.516

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.018
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.004
Science and technology studies0.0050.007
Scholarly communication0.0040.002
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0160.004

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 head0.047
GPT teacher head0.310
Teacher spread0.262 · 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
GenreCommentary

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 topicDiversity and Impact of Dance→French-language works237,207→