MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4380874301 · doi:10.3138/ctr.111.003

Dave veut jouer Richard III: Interrogating the Shakespearean Body in Québec

2002· article· en· W4380874301 on OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff
Leanore Lieblein

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Theatre Review · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicHistorical and Literary Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsContext (archaeology)ColonialismPoliticsNationalismFrenchMaturity (psychological)ArtHumanitiesHistoryPolitical scienceLawArchaeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Shakespeare has always served francophone Québec as a site of difference. He has been both a rival to Molière and an agent of the British and anglo-Canadian other. His work has been emulated and denigrated, parodied and defaced. Even when admired, the performance of Shakespeare in Québec has never been uncontaminated by its multiple colonial associations; thus, Québec adaptations of Shakespeare have also been a site of resistance: Michel Garneau’s 1978 “translation” of Macbeth into Québécois, for example, demonstrated in the context of his nationalist project that Québécois was not merely a dialect but a language, one that had the maturity and the flexibility to render the words of even Le grand Will. At the same time, given Garneau’s sense of Québec’s otherness of language, culture and politics, the ostensible act of translation could not be other than an act of adaptation – or tradaptation, the word he coined – in which Shakespeare’s Scotland became “notre pauvre pays,” the victim of a tyrannical oppressor (Brisset 199-297 and passim).

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: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.093
Threshold uncertainty score0.677

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0260.012
Scholarly communication0.0060.001
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0030.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

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 head0.031
GPT teacher head0.270
Teacher spread0.239 · 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
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

Citations2
Published2002
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Theatre ReviewSame topicHistorical and Literary StudiesFrench-language works237,207