MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4380874236 · doi:10.3138/ctr.111.007

Dancing With Shakespeare

2002· article· en· W4380874236 on OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff
Mark Fortier

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Theatre Review · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicTheatre and Performance Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDanceContext (archaeology)NarrativeContemplationVisual artsMovement (music)ArtChoreographyContemporary danceStatement (logic)AestheticsLiteratureHistoryPhilosophyLinguisticsEpistemology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In 2001, Tom Stroud celebrated his tenth anniversary as artistic director of Winnipeg’s Contemporary Dancers. In that period he has created a number of performances in which dance and theatre intertwine in the use of verbal text as inspiration for dance movement. As a choreographer, Stroud is often dissatisfied with “pure dance,” in which movement has no context or connection to ideas. For him, text makes movement specific and adds a psychological dimension to dance, while dance embodies ideas and allows access to the emotional heart of the textual material. His approach to text and theatre is not so much narrative as “poetic”: his dance presents a series of images around a set of themes that arise in the chosen text. In this way, dance “makes a statement,” but this statement is in the oracular form of images that allow for audience members to make their own contemplative connections. Stroud invokes Pina Bausch as one of his precursors who have united theatre and dance. In a Canadian context it is easy to be reminded of Montreal’s Carbone 14.

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)0.001
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: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.670
Threshold uncertainty score0.664

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.004
Science and technology studies0.0090.004
Scholarly communication0.0040.002
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0180.003

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 head0.036
GPT teacher head0.209
Teacher spread0.173 · 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
Published2002
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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