Bibliographic record
Abstract
Re: Producing Women’s Dramatic History: The Politics of Playing in Toronto is the first book-length solo effort from D.A. Hadfield, co-editor of Canadian Drama and the Critics and teacher of English, drama and theatre at the University of Guelph and St. Jerome’s University (Waterloo, ON). A reincarnation of her doctoral dissertation, Hadfield’s text offers a comprehensive rendering of the strategies employed by seven feminist productions staged in Toronto during the 1980s and early 1990s. As the title suggests, the productions are thematically linked by content concerned with a re-visioning of women’s history and historiography. The book’s emphasis is not literary, however; rather it focuses on how the productions negotiated “a complex journey through both pages and stages” (9), generating “historiographical remainders” (10), successfully accessing the mainstream and reproduction and consequently gaining admission to the annals of Canadian theatre history. As the title further indicates, Hadfield’s interrogation is a political one. By analysing “textual residues” (publicity materials, photos, programs, reviews, box office receipts and theatre records), the author explores how “the politics of the theatrical process influences the quality and the type of historiographical remainders” (10) and how these, in turn, affect visibility, reception, publication and the assumption that what is being produced is “quality” theatre. This approach, outlined in the preface, provides the means for tracing “the process of creating a theatrical ‘success’” (9).
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.010 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 0.001 |
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.
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".