MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4308422628 · doi:10.3138/tric.43.2.a02

Closing the Distance: Intermediality, Immediacy, and Intercultural Affect in Tetsuro Shigematsu’s <i>Empire of the Son</i>

2022· article· fr· W4308422628 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Signy Lynch

Bibliographic record

VenueTheatre Research in Canada · 2022
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicDiscourse Analysis in Language Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanitiesImmediacyPhilosophyPolitical scienceSociologyArt

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Le présent article porte sur Empire of the Son, la pièce autobiographique de l’écrivain vancouvérois Tetsuro Shigematsu qui traite de la complexité de sa relation avec son père. Le texte révèle en quoi Shigematsu recourt à l’intermédialité comme stratégie pour sonder la distance interpersonnelle et émotionnelle qui les sépare. Grâce à une analyse détaillée de la production faisant appel aux théories de l’intermédialité et de l’affect interculturel, Lynch explore la façon dont Empire of the Son fait usage de médias pour créer des correspondances entre l’immédiateté technologique et la proximité interpersonnelle et interculturelle. L’autrice expose comment Shigematsu forge de telles comparaisons en vue de scruter et de déconstruire des notions telle la proximité et la distance, de sorte à souligner leur fonctionnement complexe au sein des relations interpersonnelles et interculturelles, surtout sur le plan affectif. Enfin, l’autrice explore ce que la relation entre l’interprète et le public ajoute à cette démarche, puisque la pièce met en scène des rapports interculturels et interpersonnels qui incitent le public à revoir ses présupposés et ses conceptions de la différence. Ce faisant, le public est appelé à déconstruire la binarité qui sépare le soi et l’autre, sur laquelle repose trop souvent la notion d’interculturalisme.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.312
Threshold uncertainty score0.921

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.048
GPT teacher head0.331
Teacher spread0.283 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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
Published2022
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTheatre Research in CanadaSame topicDiscourse Analysis in Language StudiesFrench-language works237,207