MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4380874120 · doi:10.3138/ctr.119.001

Dramaturgy: Forging Definition

2004· article· en· W4380874120 on OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff
Peter Hinton

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Theatre Review · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicTheatre and Performance Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDramaturgyAestheticsCourageSkepticismTheatre studiesPolitical theatrePower (physics)PoliticsIdealismArtSociologyVisual artsDramaPolitical scienceLawPhilosophyEpistemology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

As artists, we come to the theatre by accident or trauma. Weremain out of fortitude and stubbornness. Wereturn to each project with the knowledge that true discomfort is humanizing and that it is never too late for hope to stimulate change. Popular skepticism and a lot of contemporary theatre talk tell us that art has never changed anyone. We have seen the failure of a political attachment to culture and social change and prefer to abandon the idealism of the theatre we desire for the more practical concerns of the theatre we have. I have always believed in the innate power of the theatre to change people’s lives because it changed my own. While the Canadian regional theatre embraces dramaturgy in terms of “audience,” people seeing “their own stories,” and writers writing about “what they know” and creating works “for the large stage,” they fail to grasp the relevance of the independent dramaturges, who encourage writers to think unashamedly for themselves, pursue stories that have yet to be claimed and nurture the courage in playwrights to write about what they do not already understand.

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)0.013
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.018
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.067
Threshold uncertainty score0.226

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0130.018
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0120.010
Science and technology studies0.0070.060
Scholarly communication0.0210.018
Open science0.0040.007
Research integrity0.0040.007
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.036
GPT teacher head0.229
Teacher spread0.193 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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
Published2004
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Theatre Review→Same topicTheatre and Performance Studies→French-language works237,207→