Bibliographic record
Abstract
The 1958 edition of Albert Camus’s Caligula, published in paperback by Gallimard, is the only cheap and readily available one. However, Gill Champagne preferred to use another text for his winter 2010 production at the Théâtre du Trident in Quebec City: he sought out the first version of the play, completed by Camus in 1939 at the age of 25—which is also the hero’s age when the curtain rises. Camus’s creative process had begun even earlier, at the age of 18, with his discovery of the historical figure Caligula. This article identifies the essential differences between the early version and the definitive version of the play and discusses the reasons behind Gill Champagne’s choice of text. It then analyzes some of his esthetic choices regarding the staging and examines the ways in which they express a young man’s psychology and vision of the world. Résumé Le Caligula d’Albert Camus est daté de 1958 : c’est l’année que porte l’édition de la pièce en format poche chez Gallimard, la seule édition facilement accessible et bon marché. Ce n’est pourtant pas ce texte-là que Gill Champagne a choisi de mettre en scène à l’hiver 2010 au Théâtre du Trident, à Québec. Il a préféré plutôt puiser dans la première version de la pièce, que Camus a achevée en 1939, à l’âge de 25 ans (qui est aussi l’âge du héros au lever du rideau), et dont le processus créateur s’est enclenché quand il n’avait que 18 ans et qu’il découvrit le personnage historique Caligula. Après avoir établi les différences essentielles entre la version primitive de la pièce et sa version définitive, cet article expose les raisons qui ont motivé le choix textuel de Gill Champagne. Il analyse ensuite quelques choix esthétiques qu’a effectués ce dernier dans sa mise en scène, et examine en quoi ils font sentir une vision du monde et une psychologie propres à la jeunesse.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.050 | 0.010 |
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".