Bibliographic record
Abstract
Sally Clark has been an influential figure in Canadian theatre and scholarship since the 1980s. While some critics have traced feminist impulses in her work, none have yet considered how some of her plays unsettle dominant paradigms of aging and old age. This article analyses Clark’s dramaturgy in two plays that offer compelling portraits of women aging into and experiencing old age: Moo and Ten Ways to Abuse an Old Woman. While at times Clark reinscribes ageist narratives, she also offers resistant and rebellious alterna- tives to dominant age ideology, particularly in her disruption of the decline narrative. Clark’s use of achronicity, disruption of rising conflict, intratextual polyvocality, ambiguous endings, and humor results in constructions of female aging and old age that highlight performativity, challenge disease (senility) as an objective category, and disrupt the simplistic association between aging and loss. Through considering how a play’s dramatic structure works to expose or conceal, subvert or reinforce dominant age ideology, this analysis reveals the complex processes through which age narratives are imprinted on our cultural consciousness in the ways that stories are told—not just through their themes, but also through their structure, which influences how we understand time, the finitude of events, and the prominence of voices.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.017 | 0.003 |
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".