Bibliographic record
Abstract
In keeping with a central question in this issue concerning how new forms of theatre are developed in Canada, the following writings offer a glimpse of various strategies; some historical, relating to the body; some from outside theatre buildings and practices, yet entirely applicable to theatrical spectacle and a revision of narrative and documentation; some concerning racial identity and the question of dramaturgical form. Connecting this issue to the last, which started us down the path of examining Canadian plays, playwrights and ultimately the evolution of a good deal of contemporary dramaturgy in our country, Rachel Ditor’s view of the current scene in Vancouver is testimony to how a particular community is at its prime when infused with invention from many perspectives all at once. Overall it would seem that the recent publications, performances and even playwrights’ festivals reviewed here all demonstrate that there is a shift of focus in the new work, away from what might be considered the primacy of “text” toward something that might best be described as “experience.” The term “experience” is crucial because, as theorist David George reminds us, the word is etymologically derived from the French “to put to the test” (23). Thus, experience is an experiment, and the work discussed in the following pages affirm this; theatre can be more than just forms of representation attempting to depict a single reality – experienced as a reality in and of itself – theatre can be a series of experiments in creating alternative realities.
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 | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.476 | 0.492 |
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".