MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4380874370 · doi:10.3138/ctr.140.004

Rising Tide Theatre: Communication and Paradigm

2009· article· en· W4380874370 on OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff
Mark Turner

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Theatre Review · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicArtistic and Creative Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMandateInstitutionContext (archaeology)Order (exchange)Theatre studiesMedia studiesHistorySociologyVisual artsArtAestheticsPolitical scienceArchaeologySocial scienceDramaLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Founded in 1978 by Donna Butt and David Ross, Rising Tide Theatre has come to serve as one of the bedrocks of a contemporary Newfoundland and Labrador theatrical tradition. Unlike many of its counterparts, Rising Tide has embedded itself in the province as a cultural institution, responsible for developing and sustaining an infrastructure upon which multiple generations of theatre artists, musician s and an entire community (Trinity) have come to rely. The distinction here is an important one, particularly within the context of this issue of CTR, as, in order to come to some understanding of the company’s communication paradigm, we need to acknowledge and account for the manner in which it has historically come to envision its operations and mandate as something larger than a theatre company – as a locally rooted cultural institution. Ultimately, this mandate and the communication paradigm that arose from it have been shaped in equal parts by the locations of theatrical performance and by audience perceptions of those locations, as they have been by Donna Butt’s goal of helping to establish a professional Newfoundland and Labrador theatrical tradition.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.962
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.047
GPT teacher head0.295
Teacher spread0.247 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

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

Citations0
Published2009
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Theatre ReviewSame topicArtistic and Creative ResearchFrench-language works237,207