MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4380874335 · doi:10.3138/ctr.101.002

The Royal Engineers, 1858-1863: Theatrical Entertainment for and by the Enlisted Men

2000· article· en· W4380874335 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Patrick B. O’Neill

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Theatre Review · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicMilitary history and social perspectives
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEntertainmentAmusementOfficerRecreationCommitHistoryArtPsychologyVisual artsLawPolitical scienceArchaeologySocial psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

From the seventeenth to the nineteenth centuries, part of the British officer’s cultural attainment was his assistance in the provision of theatrical entertainment; however, it was not necessarily part of the attainment of enlisted men, many of whom, during the first part of the nineteenth century, could neither read nor write. For the enlisted men, private theatricals on a large scale began during the 1840s as a conscious attempt to “provide recreation and harmless amusement for the troops . . . so as to wean them away from the low beerhouses where they are encouraged to desert and commit other military offenses” (Bermuda). By 1842 Sir J.E. Alexander advised officers trying to decrease the desertion rate in British North America specifically to encourage theatricals in the barracks: Music has a most humanizing tendency; it would be well to encourage that in a corps: and if theatricals can be conducted with the strict propriety of dialogue they will have a beneficial effect, and amuse the men in the long winter evenings. (475)

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)0.002
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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.697
Threshold uncertainty score0.609

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.004
Science and technology studies0.0040.005
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.001

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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.255
Teacher spread0.246 · 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

Citations1
Published2000
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Theatre ReviewSame topicMilitary history and social perspectivesFrench-language works237,207