MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4380874095 · doi:10.3138/ctr.123.001

How Much Fun Is That?

2005· article· en· W4380874095 on OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff
Pat Bradley

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Theatre Review · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicTheatre and Performance Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWork (physics)Subject (documents)Public relationsBalance (ability)Task (project management)SociologyQuality (philosophy)Focus (optics)PsychologyManagementPolitical scienceEngineeringComputer scienceEpistemologyEconomicsWorld Wide Web

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

When I was asked to contribute to this edition of CTR, addressing working conditions in the country’s theatre, my task was not to come up with something to write about but to narrow the ideas down to something both doable and (I hope) useful. I decided to focus on what kind of working conditions, in general and on average, theatre companies offer both to staff and to freelancers. I began with a question: What constitutes good conditions of work? The consensus in the exhaustive literature on the subject is that quality of work life is comprised of a number of elements, including career and employment security, health and well-being, developing skills and competencies and maintaining a work—life balance. Based on that model, can the Canadian theatre claim to be an enlightened workplace?

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.454
Threshold uncertainty score0.914

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0110.009
Scholarly communication0.0100.005
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0020.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0130.003

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.

Opus teacher head0.044
GPT teacher head0.232
Teacher spread0.187 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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
Published2005
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Theatre ReviewSame topicTheatre and Performance StudiesFrench-language works237,207