Bibliographic record
Abstract
Everybody loves a success story, and in Canadian theatre they don’t come much bigger than Michael Healey’s The Drawer Boy. Within a mere two years of its first presentation at Toronto’s Theatre Passe Muraille, and twenty-nine years after Paul Thompson’s seminal The Farm Show (from which it drew its life), The Drawer Boy has been staged at more than twenty theatres across Canada in a dozen original productions; won its author the 1999 Dora, Chalmers and Governor General’s Awards; received three professional productions in Toronto alone, including a six-week, eighty-nine per cent capacity run at the 1,000-seat Winter Garden Theatre; been produced with a star-studded cast by the famed Steppenwolf Theatre in Chicago; and met with standing ovations wherever it was staged. In addition, another co-production this fall will take the play to the National Arts Centre, the Vancouver Playhouse, the Edmonton Citadel and Hamilton’s Aquarius Theatre; Michael Healey himself will direct the play at Vienna’s legendary English Theatre (where works by the likes of Tennessee Williams and Edward Albee received world premieres); discussions are underway to render the play for the big screen; and, finally, there is enough pent-up demand for the play from many American regional theatres, theatres across Britain and Australia and from amateur theatres worldwide to provide Healey with a handsome residual income for a very long time. While Michael Healey seems to take his success in stride – “It’s made me less grumpy” and “I think my new Jetta is a little too big for me, I may replace it with a Golf” (Healey, personal interview)1 – how good are we, collectively, as a young theatre culture at handling “our own” successes, especially when they are reproduced throughout the continent? How well do we respond to these re-productions, as both participating artists and critics, and what are some of the issues which concern us with re-productions staged in a context that is not our own?
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.014 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.147 | 0.051 |
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".