Bibliographic record
Abstract
As an introduction to the following View & Reviews, I want you to consider how we approach the past. The advantage of theatre history is that its object of inquiry is obviously an ephemeral phenomenon, and thereby it can neither be exhaustively known nor can it be precisely identified. Perhaps the same can be said of all historical phenomena; what if we view history as a kind of performance? It strikes me that this way of framing the past is useful because we must not only be concerned with objects and facts, but we must think carefully about our relationship to these things. If we begin to think of the past in terms of such relationships our sense of history becomes as vast and evocative as our relationship with a performance. Moreover, we gain access to an enlightened perspective on reality: that the Stratford Festival as an institution is as much a constructed performance as any show you will witness on its stages; that there are many performances around us, past and present, full of the hopes, dreams or political aspirations of the people presenting them.
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 | 0.004 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.011 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.080 | 0.083 |
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".