Bibliographic record
Abstract
During the summer 2021 and under the direction of Geneviève De Viveiros, Amanda Lee produced a large portion of this study based on Sarah Bernhardt’s performances in Canada as they occurred between 1800 and 1918 and were studied by John Hare and Ramon Hathron, who included in their records her repertoire and the dates of her performances as well as critical opinions from various print sources. When Montréal constructed its francophone theater and its artistic infrastructure it quickly caught up with anglophone venues. Catholic institutions became increasingly adverse to Bernhardt deemed unworthy to represent the desired link to the French Catholic cultural bridge with the former motherland, in a context that revealed itself anti-women as well as anti-Semitic for this respected actress of Jewish ancestry, yet so famous for her French elocution. Bernhardt’s sulphureous reputation festered when she was reported as accusing people from Québec to be Iroquois or under religious guidance, setting her friend Louis Fréchette apart from the benighted crowd. Conversely, contrary to the increasingly negative reception of Bernhardt’s performances in the early 1900s, and the association of Jewish immigrants with Anglophone communities, Yiddish theatre saw a massive and fragmented growth between 1905-1910. By 1913, there were a total of three permanent professional Yiddish theatre troupes in the city.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.015 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.025 | 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".