MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4380874204 · doi:10.3138/ctr.104.003

The Worlds Within Worlds of Vittorio Rossi

2000· article· en· W4380874204 on OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff
Gregory J. Reid

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Theatre Review · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicTheatre and Performance Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIronyMainstreamDissenting opinionEthnic groupSociologyClass (philosophy)AestheticsMedia studiesGender studiesArtLiteratureLawPhilosophyAnthropologyEpistemologyPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In Irony’s Edge, Linda (Bortolotti) Hutcheon observes that irony is made possible and “happens” when “discursive communities” (groups which might share, for example, a gender or ethnicity or profession or interests or a particular awareness) overlap within the lives and experiences of particular individuals making simultaneous, multiple and often contradictory interpretations of texts and events possible (89). Hutcheon offers her own gender, class, profession, colour and Italian Canadian “crypto-ethnicity” as potential sources of irony. The career and imbricated worlds of first-generation Italian-Anglo-Québécois-Canadian actor/playwright Vittorio Rossi1 and the contradictory reception of his work by audiences and the press display some particularly sharp-edged ironies. Three critics—Ray Conlogue, Pat Donnelly and Kate Taylor —stand out as speaking with the voice of authority from their positions in the mainstream press, while they, in fact, based on the available evidence, present minority, dissenting opinions on the plays of Vittorio Rossi.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.244
Threshold uncertainty score0.486

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0040.008
Scholarly communication0.0050.002
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.229
Teacher spread0.209 · 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
Published2000
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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