MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4380874467 · doi:10.3138/ctr.127.017

Exposure in Liveness: Exposure in Liveness

2006· article· en· W4380874467 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Heidi Bickis

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Theatre Review · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicTheatre and Performance Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLivenessImmediacyHappeningEvent (particle physics)Context (archaeology)Presentation (obstetrics)Media eventWitnessHistoryPerformance artMedia studiesVisual artsArtComputer scienceSociologyArt historyEpistemology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In our increasingly mediatized society, liveness has earned a prestigious status. Even within the context of the media, the live is often held above the recorded. Liveness implies immediacy, a happening in real time, and tends to be associated with watching an event or performance in real time: live celebrity trials, live episodes of TV talk shows or live news coverage. In this sense, live also suggests the real; what we see live is real life, unrecorded, unedited and unfiltered by the media (whether this is, in fact, the case or not). To consider theatre with this idea of liveness in mind is almost paradoxical. Theatre may be a live event, but it is not real, nor are the events on stage necessarily happening in real time. Often, what we see on stage are retold experiences, retold stories. Theatre is live, but it is already secondary, a re-presentation placed on the stage.

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.011
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 score0.018
Threshold uncertainty score0.044

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.011
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0030.024
Scholarly communication0.0070.011
Open science0.0010.008
Research integrity0.0020.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0130.001

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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.222
Teacher spread0.201 · 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

Citations0
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Theatre ReviewSame topicTheatre and Performance StudiesFrench-language works237,207